PRIVATE BUSINESS

Broads Authority Bill  ( By Order )
	 Order for Third Reading read.
	 To be read the Third time on Thursday 3 April.
	Bournemouth Borough Council Bill  [Lords] (By Order)
	Canterbury City Council Bill  (By Order)
	Leeds City Council Bill (By Order)
	London Local Authorities (Shopping Bags) Bill  (By Order)
	Manchester City Council Bill  [ Lords ] (By Order)
	Nottingham City Council Bill  (By Order)
	Reading Borough Council Bill  (By Order)
	 Orders for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 3 April.

Oral Answers to Questions

INNOVATION, UNIVERSITIES AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Higher Education (Access)

Clive Efford: What steps he is taking to assist universities in attracting the best students irrespective of background.

John Denham: We support a range of policies to ensure that talented people from all backgrounds are able and willing to develop their potential through higher education. They include the Aimhigher programme and the gifted and talented education programme, which run alongside universities' own outreach activities and the continuing development of better links between schools and higher education. We are also improving the level of student financial support, so that from September, at least two thirds of all students will receive a full or partial grant.

Clive Efford: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but may I draw to his attention some of my concerns about the number of young people from state schools going to Oxford or Cambridge? I hear reports from pupils who go to open events at those universities that the impression given to them is that they will not be given any preferential treatment just because they come from a state school. That might be the right thing to say, but the way it is said can put people off applying and working towards the goal that they may have set themselves of going to those universities. What can my right hon. Friend do to deal with that issue, to address the fact that the number of state school pupils going to those universities has stalled, and to encourage pupils to reach their full potential?

John Denham: We continually stress to all universities, but particularly the most selective, the importance of continuing to make progress on widening participation. It would be wrong to suggest that no efforts are being made; I visited Cambridge university a few weeks ago and met a group of students from Leicestershire, none of whose parents have been to university. They were part of the outreach programme. We have to not only work on the universities' admissions programmes, but look at the links between universities and the skills held at a much younger age, because it is at that younger age that people are likely to form the attitude, "This institution is not for me." On Cambridge, the House will welcome yesterday's announcement—although I have to say that it is nothing to do with the Government—that Mr. Harvey McGrath has made a £4 million endowment to Cambridge university specifically to help with its programme to widen participation.

Philip Hollobone: Would the Secretary of State kindly agree to meet a delegation from the borough of Kettering to discuss how students from all backgrounds in the borough might be able to attract a new university to the town?

John Denham: I suspect that I will do very little else for the next six months but meet the delegations of a number of right hon. and hon. Members who aspire to have a new university campus in their area. I would be delighted if the hon. Gentleman was one of them. It is clear that the new university challenge has inspired many communities across the country to realise what an important contribution a higher education institution can make to participation in higher education, economic development and economic regeneration. I am pleased to see how many areas and towns are now developing university plans.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recommendation of the former Select Committee on Education and Skills that Oxford and Cambridge change their application system so that it marries into the overall university application system would, at one stroke, encourage far more able young people from non-traditional backgrounds to apply to Oxford and Cambridge?

John Denham: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I am sure he knows, just a few weeks ago, Cambridge university, at least, announced that it was doing precisely what the Select Committee recommended. It is bringing its application procedure and application forms into line with the rest of the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service system. Following on from the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), it is important that universities that are highly sought after look at every aspect of their process to make sure that there is nothing in it that puts off, even inadvertently, talented students from backgrounds where people would not normally be sent to a higher education institution.

Robert Wilson: The Secretary of State often boasts about the Government's efforts to widen participation, but is it not the case that widening participation funds for a majority of Russell group universities have recently been cut? For example, Cambridge has been cut by 39 per cent., Oxford by 37 per cent., Bristol by 23 per cent., University college London by 13 per cent., and so on. Is that how the Government plan to help the poorest students get to our best universities?

John Denham: It is important to understand that there have been no changes to the formula that determines how money to widen participation is allocated to universities. Part of the formula rewards universities that are successful in attracting students from a wider range of backgrounds. Many other funds are available to universities, including those that go into bursaries and other means of attracting students from such backgrounds, and it is clearly a responsibility on the universities that are making least progress to do better.

Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend feel that universities are doing enough by way of going into schools, even primary schools, to encourage children to aim higher? In my constituency there are many children who have no family members who have been to university. They have no knowledge of what university is about, and they need encouraging. I even have in my constituency many children who have one parent who has never been to school. Those children are disadvantaged because they are not aspiring to the level of education that they could aspire to, and they need encouragement. The universities could help so much by going in and explaining to the children what they would be able to derive from a university education.

John Denham: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. There is a high volume of activity by universities. A recent report produced by the vice-chancellor of Exeter university, Professor Steve Smith, collated examples of activities by every university involved with schools. We need to do a number of things. First, we need to determine which of those activities are most effective at promoting participation, out of the many different activities that currently take place. Secondly, we need better structural links between universities and schools, whereby schools become involved not just in one-off projects with universities, but through deep lasting links dealing with the curriculum, aspirations and all those issues. We also need to build on the work that has begun as part of the "Aimhigher" programme, which involves working directly with parents and grandparents, particularly in communities where aspirations are low. We are beginning to understand that trying to inspire young people is more difficult if the messages are not reinforced by other family members.

Phil Willis: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the problems that we have in the House—we have heard about it already from the Opposition Benches—is the talk about "the best universities"? What we want to do is get the best students into our universities. Will the Secretary of State do all he can to make sure that every university in the country is valued for what it does as an institution, instead of having the absurd notion of a league table to which people should aspire?

John Denham: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I have made a series of speeches over the past few months stressing the importance of mutual respect for the different types of universities. We should not pretend that all universities are the same, because they are not, or that all universities are suitable for each individual student, because they are not. It is important that each university is seen to be excellent at what it chooses to do, and that the right students can get to the right university for their particular abilities and aptitudes. Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not like the language that suggests that some places are good and some are not very good, when in fact they are doing different types of education for different types of students, but very often doing it equally well.

Science and Innovation Campuses

Helen Southworth: What his policy is on the development of science and innovation campuses.

Ian Pearson: The Government are fully committed to developing Daresbury and Harwell as world class science and innovation campuses. As we say in our White Paper "Innovation Nation", published two weeks ago, the vision is that they should be places where new collaborative approaches to research, innovation and learning are developed. They will be environments where scientists from a wide range of disciplines can work together in a mutually supportive manner. The campuses will be prime locations for the international research and development sector, and will contribute to developing the UK's internationally renowned scientific and high technology skills base. Public sector organisations will work alongside businesses exploiting research to develop and profit from innovative products and services. Small, medium and large public and private organisations can also co-locate to their mutual benefit.

Helen Southworth: I hope my hon. Friend will soon visit Daresbury science and innovation campus so that he can see for himself the success that is being achieved there in bringing science, innovation and technology companies into the UK. The quality of science at Daresbury laboratory is crucial to that success, so will he ensure that the Science and Technology Facilities Council retains and expands key scientific skills at Daresbury laboratory and ensures future success there?

Ian Pearson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. In direct reply, I should say that I hope to be able to visit Daresbury next week; I am sure that I will see world class science being conducted there. I want to stress that as a Government we have a vision for the development of Daresbury as a science and innovation campus that conducts world class research and innovation. Over the next few years, we anticipate the development of critical areas of expertise. Through its project manager, Daresbury will be leading on the new light source project. Over the next few years, we hope to see the build-up of the Cockcroft institute, a detector systems centre and a centre for computational science.

Adam Afriyie: Despite the Minister's warm words, there is clearly a crisis with science funding overall. On the "Today" programme of 11 December, he was asked whether he would help with the £80 million science budget deficit. He replied that
	"we will have to see what the review says."
	On three separate occasions during the interview, he led us to believe that the Wakeham review would look at science budgets. Yet in February we discovered that it will not look at science budgets at all. The question is: does the Minister intend to renege on his commitment to review the science budget? A simple yes or no will do.

Ian Pearson: I have made the position on the science budget very clear. We have more than doubled that budget in the past 10 years; it will have tripled by 2010-11, approaching £6 billion per annum. There is a situation with regard to the Science and Technology Facilities Council; that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked Bill Wakeham to conduct a review of the health of physics as a discipline. I do not know what the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) does, but when we have a review, we wait for its findings and then consider what it says.

Mike Hall: My hon. Friend will be aware that Daresbury laboratory has been at the forefront of innovative scientific research for the past 40 years. I am delighted that he has committed himself and the Department to ensuring that it plays a full part in the generation of the new light source. I believe that that new light source will be the future for the laboratory and I would like somebody on the Science and Technology Facilities Council to advocate specifically on behalf of Daresbury; that is where there is a gap at the moment. I press my hon. Friend to ensure that the council has a voice for Daresbury.

Ian Pearson: I thank my hon. Friend for all his work promoting Daresbury as a science and innovation campus. As he will be aware, the new light source project is headed by Professor Jon Marangos from Imperial college. Dr. Frances Quinn is the project manager at Daresbury. The STFC estimates that 19 of the 25 to 28 staff years to be devoted to the project will come from Daresbury. There will be further oversight by the STFC through a new light source board, to be chaired by Professor Tim Wess of Cardiff university. He is also the chair of the STFC's physical and life sciences committee. This is an exciting new project. The people who understand the detail of new light source projects advise me that a robust business case can be prepared for such a project. We look forward to the consultations that will take place in the coming months.

Ian Lucas: New universities with science and innovation campuses, such as the one that we hope to have very shortly in Wrexham, often have the closest relationships with industry. What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that such universities have equal access to research funding, which should not be allocated on a purely historical basis?

Ian Pearson: One of the great things that we have seen over the last 10 years is increased and sustained investment in the science budget, with greater business interaction between the university research base and companies in particular areas. Research funding is provided on the basis of peer review proposals through the research councils, so it is not based on historical performance at all. It will be up to universities to submit good quality applications to be considered by the research councils. One of the exciting things that has happened as a result of the new spending round is that, for the first time, there are big cross-council research programmes that address some of the biggest challenges facing the world today, such as living with environmental change, energy and so on. There are opportunities for researchers to put forward project proposals to work in those exciting areas, which could be hugely important for the UK and globally.

Apprenticeships

Tony Baldry: What recent estimate he has made of the number of people taking level 3 advanced apprenticeships.

Bill Rammell: Over the past decade, we have more than doubled the number of people starting apprenticeships overall, from 65,000 in 1996-97 to an estimated 180,000 in 2006-07. The number of people starting an advanced apprenticeship in 2006-07, the last full year for which figures are available, was 57,000 at level 3—5,000 more than the previous year.

Tony Baldry: Is not the reality that the UK is training fewer people at level 3 than we were 10 years ago and that the number of apprentices in training is actually falling? Do we not need a system of apprenticeships that is much more responsive to the needs of employers and does much more to engage employers in wanting to take on apprentices?

Bill Rammell: The numbers of young people studying at level 3 are most certainly not falling, and I have to say that the figures speak for themselves. Eleven years ago there were 65,000 apprentices; today there are 180,000. Yes, we need to do more to engage employers, which is why we set up the apprenticeship review, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to work with us in engaging with employers on that. However, 11 years ago there was not much of a debate about how much apprenticeships had expanded, because they had been allowed to die, as the Conservative party did not care how many people started or completed an apprenticeship, and there was absolutely no focus on quality.

Ann Coffey: Approximately 38 per cent. of all young apprentices in Stockport are in advanced apprenticeship programmes, which is a good number. Does the Minister agree, however, that it is also important to ensure that those apprentices complete their programmes, and has he made any recent assessment of completion rates?

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question; I know that she takes a real interest in these issues. If we look at completion rates, we see that in 2001-02 the rate was 39,000, and in 2006-07 it was 103,000. We have gone from a 25 per cent. completion rate to a 63 per cent. one. We can remember the days when we were way behind Germany, which was seen as an exemplar in this area, but our completion rates are now almost at the German level. I am not complacent, but I think that we have a lot to be thankful for in terms of the investment that we have put in and the gains that we have made in the last 11 years.

John Hayes: If we want to reduce the decline in the number of level 3 apprenticeships that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) mentioned, we need greater clarity in their delivery. Last week, in a written statement, which we had no opportunity to debate in this House, it was announced that the Learning and Skills Council is going, to be replaced by a bewildering array of new quangos. There will be a new skills funding agency with responsibility for a new national apprenticeship scheme, but local authorities will also be responsible for delivering apprenticeships in their areas, and accountable to a new young people's learning agency. Further education colleges will have to deal with all of them. It is like the government of Byzantium. Doubtless, the Minister will want to tell us what economies he expects to make, so will he tell us how many bureaucrats will go, and how much taxpayer's money will be saved as a result of the changes?

Bill Rammell: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that already, under the existing Learning and Skills Council, there has been a significant reduction in bureaucracy, which has gone directly to support front-line provision. On his question about apprenticeships at level 3, we need to focus on completion rates. In 2002-03, there were 18,400 completions, while in 2006-07, there were 30,800. Those people have gone through the system, been given skills and are now supported. With regard to his comments on the new arrangements that we set out last week, in my experience, college principals—I have met many of them—broadly welcome the approach that we are setting out— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman needs to get out and about more often if he is not getting that message. There are already two separate commissioning processes pre-19 and post-19, and we are bringing those together. I believe that the system can work, and I urge him to talk directly to college principals to find out their real views.

Research and Development

Andy Reed: What steps he is taking to increase collaboration between universities and businesses to improve research and development.

Ian Pearson: University and business interaction has improved significantly over the past 10 years. As my hon. Friend will know from his close contact with Loughborough university, we have seen a sea change in university-business collaboration. The Government are further encouraging collaboration through increasing the funding for the higher education innovation fund, through the Technology Strategy Board programmes and through research councils focusing on boosting their economic impact.

Andy Reed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. As he is aware, Loughborough university developed simply because of its enormous strength in linking academic strength with business, which has gone from strength to strength ever since Schofield set up the university all those decades ago. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the work of the Energy Technologies Institute, which has demonstrated exactly how we can get business and academic researchers to work together, not just in a business sense, but to make an environmental impact? Will he join me in visiting the companies that are involved, including at the Loughborough Innovation Centre and at Intelligent Energy, which has done an enormous amount to make progress on fuel cell technology and has secured further private sector funding in the past few weeks? Will he then commit the Government to promoting that technology, so that we can get it to market, which is the crucial part, on which I should like the Government to do a little more?

Ian Pearson: I very much welcome the Energy Technologies Institute, which is located at Loughborough university, but will operate on a distributed model. One reason why the independent panel decided in favour of the consortium involving Loughborough university being the home for the hub was the world-class research being conducted there. I had the opportunity to visit the engineering department at Loughborough university last year, but I would certainly be happy to go back and see some of the excellent work to which my hon. Friend refers.

Anne McIntosh: Many universities and businesses in this country collaborate with their European partners, using the facility of the European research and development programmes. Equally, many do not. What can the Minister do to bring forward the excellent resources that are available, including huge financial resources, in order to encourage research and development between universities and business in this country and other member states?

Ian Pearson: We are doing a lot through the work of the Technology Strategy Board, which will be co-ordinating spending of around £1 billion over the next three years in collaborative research and development between business and our university research base. We have also asked the Technology Strategy Board to look into how we can improve our already good performance in accessing programmes through the European Union's framework programme 7. The UK university sector does better than that of any other country at accessing FP7 funds, but I am keen that UK businesses should get a bigger slice of the action. We are working hard on trying to ensure that that happens.

Fiona Mactaggart: I have the privilege of representing one of the 10 most productive towns in the United Kingdom, yet our university—Thames Valley university—appears to be abandoning Slough. Despite that productivity, often in new technologies, science and the biotechnology industry, we do not have the university-industry link that helps in so many local authorities. What can the Minister do to help towns such as Slough to develop that vibrant business sector and to make partnerships with the other universities, which are far away, in order to create opportunities to build on what we have already achieved?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and she is certainly a great champion for Slough and the business community there. We announced in our White Paper, "Innovation Nation", which was published a fortnight ago, that we want to set up new partnerships for innovation, which might provide an opportunity for a good discussion about how we might maximise and build on the links that already exist. Although there has been a big change in university-business interaction over the past 10 years, there is still more that we can do to promote the knowledge base in our universities and ensure that it is commercially exploited. Strengthening those university-business links must be a priority for us, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the circumstances in Slough.

Innovation

Quentin Davies: What steps he is taking to encourage innovative enterprises.

John Denham: Our White Paper, "Innovation Nation", sets out the steps that the Government are taking to encourage innovative enterprises to make Britain the best country in the world in which to run an innovative business. Measures outlined in the White Paper include extending the successful innovation platform initiative, sponsored by the Technology Strategy Board, doubling the knowledge transfer partnership programme, introducing innovation vouchers for small and medium-sized enterprises, and increasing Government procurement opportunities for the most innovative enterprises.

Quentin Davies: I am grateful for that answer. What can be done further to increase innovation in the public sector?

John Denham: The public sector must not be neglected as an area for innovation. There are many good examples of public sector innovation, including NHS Direct, which has set a world standard for that new way of delivering a public service. However, as the White Paper recognises, there are areas in which we need to improve, particularly to ensure that innovation that takes place in one part of the public sector can quickly be picked up in other places. It is important to ensure that the ways in which targets are set, or the ways in which services are commissioned, lay themselves open to enabling people to find new ways of achieving the right outcome for patients, students or whoever. A key part of the White Paper is to develop within government a real strengthening of the capacity of senior civil servants, commissioners and others responsible for developing public services, to ensure that the way in which we develop our public services increases the opportunities for innovation rather than diminishes them.

Innovation

Brian Iddon: What steps he is taking to encourage young people to participate in innovation in science and technology; and if he will make a statement.

Ian Pearson: The Government are adopting a range of measures to encourage young people to participate in science and technology. They include support for the science, technology, engineering and maths network—STEMNET—and for national science and engineering week, which, as my hon. Friend will know, took place earlier this month and involved more than 3,000 events up and down the country celebrating and promoting the importance of science right across our society.

Brian Iddon: Will my hon. Friend congratulate Paul Abbott on his idea to create the Bolton technical innovation centre for STEM subjects, which is modelled on the music centre concept? I should like to thank all those organisations that have funded this unique venture during the four years that I have been associated with it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the centre could act as a model for other regions to encourage young people to innovate in science and engineering?

Ian Pearson: I know that my hon. Friend has put an enormous amount of work into the Bolton technical innovation centre, and I would certainly like to congratulate Paul and all those who work at the centre, who I know are doing tremendously good work. There are many different ways in which young people can be inspired to embark on careers in science and engineering. For example, we have 18,000 science and engineering ambassadors going into schools across the UK, and the ones I have met show the real enthusiasm that can be engendered in students about the importance of taking science subjects at GCSE and A-level, and of going on to study them at university. Following the recent Select Committee inquiry into the funding of centres such as the Bolton technical innovation centre, we are committed to carrying out a thorough review of the effectiveness of this type of centre and of other delivery agents as potential mechanisms for encouraging people to take up careers in science and to be enthused by the subject. That review will take place over the coming months.

Stephen Williams: When I was at school, I was fortunate enough to be taught by a history teacher who went on to earn a national reputation in his subject. His enthusiasm and knowledge of his subject were among the factors that led to my studying history at university. Sadly, however, too many young people studying physics today are unlikely to be taught by a properly academically qualified physics teacher. What steps is the Department taking to encourage more physics graduates to enter the teaching profession, so that they can enthuse the physics pupils of today to become the physicists of tomorrow?

Ian Pearson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of having good, inspiring teachers across a wide range of subjects, whether it be physics, history or any other discipline. Over a number of years, the Government have made some significant investment in continuing professional development and in trying to get more physics teachers in our schools. We have funded bursaries for teacher training and provided £5,000 golden hellos for physics graduates who want to teach the subject in schools. So a great deal of work is already going on, but are we complacent about the current situation? No, we are not. It is very important to get the right quality of science teachers in our schools and we need to continue to work towards that with our colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Kelvin Hopkins: I hear what my hon. Friend says about what the Government are doing to encourage young people to study science, but the fact remains that a disproportionate number of them are drawn to law, accountancy and similar professions rather than science. The reality is that the remuneration of those professions is much higher than that of scientists. Does my hon. Friend accept that something must be done to raise the status and remuneration of scientists to draw more people in?

Ian Pearson: As a Government, we are doing what we can to promote the importance of science to our economic prosperity and our future social well-being, and we work with a range of other organisations, such as the learned societies, which do a great deal of work to promote the status of science and engineering as careers. The evidence clearly demonstrates that scientists and engineers coming out of our universities are regarded by employers as having a very valuable background. We want to encourage more of them to go directly into science and engineering, but some will take up careers in the City, and I believe that the City has benefited from having well trained scientists, engineers and mathematicians, which I applaud.

Tony Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should also celebrate the role of further education colleges in this area? World-class science undoubtedly exists in this country, but translating it into practice requires the intermediate skills that only further education can provide. Does he recognise that we need proper parity of esteem between further education and higher education in this country?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to promote the importance of the further education sector. One of the key features of the Leitch review is that we need to do more on skills at all levels. The FE sector has a vital role to play in ensuring that our young people and our adult work force have the skills that will be required in the UK economy in the decades ahead. Concentration and focus on the FE sector, as well as continuing support for the university sector, are very much on our agenda as a Government.

Higher Education (Access)

Sharon Hodgson: What assessment he has made of the role of higher education institutions in encouraging members of the community who would not traditionally apply to university to do so.

Bill Rammell: We are committed to ensuring that we do not waste the talent of, or deny the opportunity to, anyone who could benefit from higher education. Higher education institutions are playing a key role in that, paying £96 million in bursaries, benefiting well over 70,000 low-income students in 2006-07, as well as being actively involved in the Aimhigher programme, their own outreach activities and the increasingly important work they are doing in schools and colleges.

Sharon Hodgson: Does the Minister agree that one way Members can encourage and increase the number of people from the underprivileged sectors of the community to get to university is by working proactively with higher education institutions? For example, I am planning to take a group of young people from my constituency to Durham university so that they can see for themselves what is on offer, which should help to dispel the myth that higher education is not for them. Would the Minister encourage other hon. Members to do the same?

Bill Rammell: I most certainly would and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she is doing. I believe that Members of Parliament—many of whom are from their own communities, are rooted in those communities and come from the same background as many of those young people—talking about the benefits of higher education and encouraging young people to access it at the earliest opportunity is indeed one of the ways we can break down the barriers and unlock the talents of all our people.

Christine Russell: Does my hon. Friend agree that another way to help young people to raise their aspirations might be to give them a little taster of university life? One way of doing that would be to encourage universities to open up their facilities so that local young people can enjoy the theatres and swimming pools that many of our universities have—actually, they have been financed by public funds. The Minister will be aware that the children's plan envisages five hours of sport and five hours of cultural opportunities for children each week. This must be a really good opportunity for the universities, too.

Bill Rammell: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The things that she is talking about are already part of the business of many universities in this country. For example, more than 2 million people attend public lectures and performances put on by higher education providers. UK academics provide more than 30,000 working days in support of museums and galleries and related activities. Indeed, our new University Challenge initiative rightly emphasises that higher education providers make a real difference to the cultural life of towns, not least through facilities that benefit both students and communities. The earlier that we can get such opportunities for young people, the more likely they will be to go on to university.

Apprenticeships

David Hamilton: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the supply of skilled workers from new apprenticeships.

John Denham: We are regularly in discussion with ministerial colleagues responsible for other Government Departments. There has been support from across the Government for the expansion of apprenticeships set out in our apprenticeships review, including the development of more public sector apprenticeships. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an additional £60 million for skills development, including advanced apprenticeships, in the recent Budget.

David Hamilton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Apprenticeships have been frozen in Scotland, so I congratulate him on the work that he is doing down here in England and in Wales. Will he have further dialogue with the Treasury to see whether he can use his reserved powers to try to assist employers and apprentices so that young lads and lasses in Scotland are not disadvantaged by the Scottish National party Administration?

John Denham: I certainly understand my hon. Friend's concerns. The skills strategy that the Scottish Executive recently produced contained only two mentions of apprenticeships in 61 pages, and no targets. Of course, our apprenticeships review says that we want to build on what we have already achieved, following the disasters of the previous Administration, to reach a position in a few years in which one in five young people can expect to go through an apprenticeship. This is a devolved matter. We have no direct way of influencing the Scottish Executive, but I wish that they shared our ambition for our young people.

Andrew MacKay: Will the Secretary of State explain why 59 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds failed to complete their apprenticeships in the last year for which figures are available?

John Denham: That comes from the party that used to have no concern at all about whether anyone completed their apprenticeships! The reality is that the completion rate in the apprenticeship system has risen from 23 to 63 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education said, that compares very well with international standards. We have achieved that by tackling weaknesses in the system when people need training providers to be replaced or to improve, and that is what we continue to do.
	The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) needs to acknowledge the Government's incredible success in rebuilding apprenticeships after they had been destroyed by the previous Administration. When he does that, I will be happy to discuss with him the extra measures that need to be put in place. However, I say to him that if he is interested—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Training (Young People)

Mark Harper: What steps he is taking to improve training opportunities for 16 to 24-year-olds.

Bill Rammell: Our plans to expand and improve apprenticeships in England are set out in "World-class Apprenticeships". We will ensure that the foundation learning tier is available to young people for whom a programme below level 2 is appropriate. We will introduce new diplomas offering a mix of practical and theoretical learning for 14 to 19-year-olds from September 2008. We are also improving the provision of high-quality, impartial careers information, advice and guidance to young people and adults.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I listened carefully to his reply and to answers to previous questions, so I am rather confused about why the number of young people between 16 and 24 who are not in full-time education or employment is now 1.24 million. That is 15 per cent. higher than in 1997, which does not seem to be a tremendous record of success.

Bill Rammell: Whether we are talking about apprenticeships, in which starts and completions are significantly up compared to 10 years ago, or whether we are talking about the proportion of 18 to 24-year-olds who are in the NEET—not in education, employment or training—category, which has fallen from 19.4 to 18 per cent., I am the first to admit that we need to do more, but I will not take lectures from the Conservative party on those issues, where we have made huge progress. We need to be focusing on apprenticeships and developing the diplomas. If we can do both those things successfully, we can achieve our ambition of raising the statutory education and training leaving age to 18.
	There has been one area of deafening silence in recent months—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can get some silence.

Sustainable Development

David Kidney: If he will make an estimate of the number of university and further education courses in which the study of sustainable development is a required element; and if he will make a statement.

Bill Rammell: Universities and colleges are well placed to contribute to the sustainable development agenda. Sustainable development is embedded in many further and higher education courses ranging from construction and the built environment to business management. With regard to environmental studies, there are some 950 higher education courses and some 200 further education courses.

David Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. As he surveys the demanding targets that our Government have accepted to cut carbon emissions, get more of our energy from renewable sources, minimise waste and recycle more of our waste, does he accept that those targets will drive a massive increase in sustainable development technologies in this country, which in turn will demand skills that our work force do not have today? Does he agree that we need an immediate, big increase in sustainable development studies—academically and vocationally—so that we have that skilled work force in time? Last Thursday, I volunteered Rodbaston college in Stafford as a centre for such vocational training.

Bill Rammell: I genuinely thank my hon. Friend for the work he does in this area as chair of the west midlands sustainable development group of further education colleges. He has recently written to me about bringing in a delegation, and I am more than happy to meet him.
	I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on the need significantly to increase the education and training opportunities in those crucial emerging industries. Indeed, yesterday evening I was talking about that very subject with the sustainable waste industry group. Sector skills councils have a hugely important role to play in discussing qualifications and articulating what needs there are in their business sector.
	Sustainable development is already embedded in many FE and HE courses. I want that to expand, and I expect it to do so. With our efforts, and those of my hon. Friend, we can take that agenda forward.

Topical Questions

John Robertson: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

John Denham: Lest we forget, in 1997 there was no dedicated capital budget for further education colleges. Today, I can tell the House that tomorrow I shall announce further details of the record £2.3 billion investment in FE college capital projects over the next three years. I can also say that we will require all new projects to meet the highest building standard for sustainable design—the BRE environmental assessment method, or BREEAM, excellence standard—and have a taskforce in place to advise on how we can get all new buildings to be zero-carbon by 2016.
	I will also be setting out—for the first time, I think—how the Government's strategy will require the inclusion of mandatory training plans for apprenticeships and work-based learning in all contracts to develop newly planned buildings.

John Robertson: Following on from the Government's nuclear energy White Paper, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the creation of the national nuclear academy, which is welcome, but is he also aware of the Dalton institute at Manchester university, which is doing so much work in this area? Can he assure me that the two institutions will be linked together and that they will be talking to each other? Will he also talk to colleagues north of the border both to look after the four nuclear power stations and the skills that will be required in the years ahead and to alleviate the problem that we have with the minority Administration—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

John Denham: I understand that the chief executive of the National Skills Academy already has strong links with the Dalton institute, and I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in the subject. We will encourage those discussions to go further.
	With regard to provision north of the border, the nuclear skills academy is developing work with four Scottish colleges, but I have to say that the only public sector money to go into that development has come through the English Learning and Skills Council. As yet, there has been no public support from the Scottish Executive, which suggests that some of those projects would be in peril if the separatists got their way.

David Willetts: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating all members of the Select Committee on the excellent report that they produced today on the withdrawal of funding for equivalent or lower-level qualifications? Does he accept the Committee's conclusion that it
	"cannot support the decision to cut funding to ELQ students in this way",
	and can he think of any report from either Education Select Committee that has been as critical of Government policy as this one?

John Denham: Of course we respect the work of the Select Committee, and as a former Select Committee Chairman I appreciate the work that Select Committees do. In this particular case, however, although we will respond to all the detailed recommendations in due course as we properly should, we do not share the Select Committee's judgment. Had we not made the decision on ELQs, thousands of people who for the first time have a chance to go to university would have been denied that opportunity. I am afraid that that is the hallmark of the hon. Gentleman's party: with every word that it speaks, it closes the door on thousands of people who want to take advantage of higher education.

David Willetts: I remind the Secretary of State that, according to the report,
	"the Government has not shown convincing evidence that the withdrawal of funding"
	will achieve their objective of enabling more suitably qualified individuals to enter higher education for the first time. The Select Committee does not accept the claim that he has just made.
	Will the Secretary of State clarify one crucial point? In a written answer, the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education said
	"no strategic decision has been taken about whether to reallocate further ELQ funding after 2010-11."—[ Official Report, 25 February 2008; Vol. 472, c. 1304W.]
	The Kremlinologists do not quite understand what that means. Does it mean that the withdrawal of ELQ funding is permanent, or does it mean that it could be reinstated in 2011?

John Denham: It is on the question of unmet demand that I disagree most profoundly with the Select Committee's judgment. If we take it at face value, the Government should abandon all efforts to expand further and higher education. In recent years there has been an enormous expansion in participation by the very students whom we want to benefit—mainly older, part-time students, who have been coming to our universities in ever-increasing numbers. I simply do not agree that, given that 6 million members of the population have the equivalent of the A-level qualifications that would enable them to participate in higher education, there is not an unmet demand.
	The position is clear. We have decided to allocate £100 million of the more than £300 million that is currently allocated to ELQs. We do not plan to reverse that decision, but as yet we have made no decision on whether it should go further in the future. My own view is that we have got the balance right between redistributing opportunity for those who have not had a chance to go to university, and maintaining opportunities for those studying strategic and vulnerable subjects to acquire ELQs.

Sharon Hodgson: Tomorrow I shall attend a Unison union learning rep event in Newcastle. Union learning reps do a tremendous job in giving second chances to people whom the education system may have failed for some reason. What further support can be given to the union learning reps programme, so that we can continue to transform the lives of the people who participate?

John Denham: I am delighted by the proactive way in which my hon. Friend is responding to the promotion of educational opportunities. She is absolutely right. We estimate that in the last year, union learning reps—who are all volunteers—brought 150,000 adults into learning. We hope that the extra £3 million that we are providing for the unionlearn programme from the next financial year will increase the number of reps, and that 250,000 people will be brought into learning for the first time.
	The programme works because someone at work, someone whom a person knows and trusts, has said "You could do it." There is no better way of introducing someone to learning than the work that union learning reps do.

Eric Joyce: The business start-up rate in my constituency is just above the Scottish national average. What is my right hon. Friend doing to help small and medium-sized companies to innovate, and can he convey any of that to the Scottish Executive?

John Denham: There are national UK programmes that are directly relevant to my hon. Friend's constituency. I would urge innovative businesses to work with the Technology Strategy Board and with higher education to take advantage of the knowledge transfer partnerships, two of which are operating in or near his constituency. My hon. Friend will be aware of R and D tax credits and, in England we are developing innovation vouchers, a way of providing small companies with, essentially, consultancy from higher education. As far as I am aware, the programme is not currently available north of the border, an issue on which he might like to press the Scottish Executive, who should be following our lead on this.

Bob Russell: The Secretary of State will be aware that the power industry has reduced its work force significantly since privatisation in 1990 and that there is now a skills crisis in the power engineering profession. With universities offering few suitable courses, will he agree to meet a delegation from British Power International, a company based in my constituency, to see how we can tackle that crisis?

John Denham: I would be delighted to have such a meeting, at which we could discuss a number of ways forward, such as the way that companies can work with a higher education institution to develop foundation degrees, or ways that the money that we have made available for co-funded courses—part employer-funded, part higher education or publicly funded—could be made available to workers already in the industry who need to raise their skill levels. There are many things that the Government are doing to try to tackle strategic challenges in the economy and I would be more than happy to discuss those further.

Adam Holloway: Does the Minister share my concern at the very large numbers of people given indefinite leave to remain and British citizenship in recent years who are unable to speak English? What can we do about this?

Bill Rammell: It is critical that those people here for the longer term learn English, and get opportunities to do so, to help them to integrate into our society. That is why we are currently consulting on how we can better target the current significant expenditure on English for speakers of other languages to ensure that it actually contributes to genuine community cohesion.

Ann Coffey: I am very pleased that in Stockport we have 1,572 young people aged 16 to 18 in apprenticeships involving employers across a wide sector. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to achieve our objectives, extra effort has to be made by providers to involve in apprenticeships those young people who are not in education or training?

John Denham: I welcome the question and would make one or two points in response. The first is that the Government are prepared, and believe it is right, to raise to 18 the participation age in education. That will create an environment in which some young people who are dropping out, certainly, of education and, often, of work will get a work-based education in the future, which could well be as an apprentice. It is a shame that the Conservative party does not understand the importance—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

David Taylor: Will the Secretary of State respond to the report launched here a few hours ago from the UK Youth Parliament, the result of almost 6,000 returned surveys of 15 to 18-year-olds in England? The good news is that 60 per cent. wanted to go into higher education. The less good news is that one in three of that 60 per cent.—i.e. 20 per cent.—felt that they would not be able to afford it. In view of that, does the Secretary of State feel that we are on target to get 50 per cent. of 18-year-olds into higher education by 2010, as we said we would in 1997?

Bill Rammell: I met members of the UK Youth Parliament yesterday to discuss that very report. I am never complacent but, for this academic year, acceptances are up by over 6 per cent., applications for next year are up by over 7 per cent. and the proportions applying from lower socio-economic groups are continuing to increase year on year. That is happening for a range of reasons, one of which is the significant expansion of non-repayable student grants that the Government are introducing from this September.

Philip Hollobone: A week today, the new Windmill avenue campus of the Tresham institute in Kettering will be officially opened. Would the Secretary of State like to congratulate all those involved in the project, especially the students and staff, and confirm his commitment to continuing investment in education in Kettering?

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier reply when I said that whereas in 1997 there was a zero capital budget for further education, there is now a £2.3 billion budget over the next three years. A few months ago, I visited another site of that college, in Corby, at an event to mark the signing of the skills pledge. I have seen the excellent work it does. I congratulate everybody involved in extending the work of the college, and I hope it continues to be successful in future.

Ben Chapman: As a result of a very welcome tranche of Learning and Skills Council funding in my constituency, one of the campuses of the further education college is under threat because the college is being required to site on two premises, rather than three. Will the Minister take an interest in that issue—although it is now subject to consultation—and in the fullness of time take account of the college's place in the community, and of its culture and history?

Bill Rammell: I am aware of the proposals from Wirral metropolitan college, and I will be happy to discuss the issue with my hon. Friend. The consultation is at an early stage. Genuine consultation will be required, and there will be a need to demonstrate that there is a genuine provision of increased further education opportunities. Nevertheless, whatever the proposal coming forward, it is manifestly the case that such colleges have a better opportunity to expand their provision because of the significant increase in investment in capital funding that this Government have delivered.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for the week commencing 31 March will be:
	Monday 31 March—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution on the Housing and Regeneration Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Housing and Regeneration Bill, followed by a motion to consider the Northern Rock plc Transfer Order 2008.
	Tuesday 1 April—Second Reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill.
	Wednesday 2 April—Opposition day [9th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled, "The Economy, Repossessions and the Housing Market", followed by a debate entitled, "The Government's Flawed Policy on Heathrow". Both debates arise on a Liberal Democrat motion.
	Thursday 3 April—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by motion on the April recess Adjournment.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 21 April will include:
	Monday 21 April—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
	Tuesday 22 April—Remaining stages of the Pensions Bill, followed by a motion relating to the statement of changes in immigration rules.
	Wednesday 23 April—Opposition day [10th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Thursday 24 April—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by a general debate, subject to be announced.
	Friday 25 April—Private Members' Bills.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. As she will be aware, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has caused huge controversy, but six weeks after First Reading we have still not been told how it will be handled in the House. When will she make a statement on that?
	This week, the Justice Secretary announced that the Government would be consulting on changes to the method of electing Members to this House. As Leader of this House, will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that no changes to the voting system will be imposed or introduced without cross-party consent?
	On Monday, we will be debating the remaining stages of the Housing and Regeneration Bill. The Bill received pre-legislative scrutiny last summer and finished its Committee stage at the end of January, but this week, only three sitting days before debate on Report, the Government have tabled 136 amendments and new clauses, on top of the 300 amendments they had already tabled in the past two months. The right hon. and learned Lady is responsible for managing Government business. She also has a responsibility to ensure that Members can scrutinise Bills properly. As Leader of the House, does she really believe that that is the right way to manage business and scrutinise important legislation?
	Last week, it was reported that the Transport for London commissioner has asked his communications team to set up an "anti-Boris unit". Transport for London has also told taxi drivers that they cannot issue receipts with "Back Boris" on them, and has threatened to withdraw funding from the Metropolitan police if its road traffic officers continue to criticise the safety record of bendy buses. Is that not a flagrant abuse of power? May we have debate on Transport for London?
	It has emerged this week that almost half our hospitals have turned away women in labour because they did not have the space for them. That lack of care for pregnant women has put their health and the health of their babies at risk, yet this Government still plan to close more local maternity services. May we have a debate in Government time on cuts in maternity service?
	Last year, the Government introduced passport interviews designed to weed out bogus candidates, but 38,000 checks and £93 million later not a single applicant has been rejected under the scheme. Is that not another example of the Government wasting taxpayers' money? May we have a debate on the procedures for issuing passports?
	This week, the National Union of Teachers voted to forbid military officers giving careers advice to schools because they would glorify war. That is on top of the decision that the Government made last year to abolish the Ministry of Defence's defence schools presentation team. Why are lawyers, accountants and doctors allowed to promote their profession to schools, but soldiers are not allowed to talk about defending our country? May we have a debate on the careers advice being given to our young people in schools?
	The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), has published a doomsday list of Labour MPs who are at risk of losing their seats, which shows the results depending on a mere 7,500 voters. The former Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers), recently criticised the Government's tax policy. I wonder whether that is why both of them were put on the list for a Delegated Legislation Committee starting at 8.55 am today. Even the Leader of the House is reported as having criticised the Prime Minister's communication skills and as having said to him:
	"When you talk about opportunity, nobody knows what you're talking about".
	Do not all those examples show that the Government are incompetent, that they waste taxpayers' money, that they have no vision for this country and that there is only one man to blame—the Prime Minister?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady asked about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Obviously, there is concern that it is properly handled and that proper scrutiny is given by this House. We will make the arrangements for handling it clear in good time before it comes to this House, following discussions with all parties.
	The right hon. Lady made a point about the voting system. She will be aware that we have introduced a number of different voting systems in different parts of the country and that there was no provision in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill for reforming the voting system. We have said in our manifestos that there would not be any change to the voting system for this House without its having been voted on by the people of this country in a referendum.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned that a large number of amendments to the Housing and Regeneration Bill have been tabled. I must say to her that it is desirable and it is best—it facilitates the best scrutiny in this House—if all the technical, drafting and policy issues are sorted out in advance of a Bill's publication, so that it can make progress and the Government's position is clear. Sometimes it is necessary to table late amendments if a response is being made to proposals from hon. Members and if the Government agree to table amendments. Generally speaking, I agree that we do not want large rafts of amendments to be tabled, because it is difficult for hon. Members to scrutinise on that basis. I shall remind all my ministerial colleagues of the point that she makes, with which I think the whole House would agree.
	The right hon. Lady went on to highlight a number of issues about London. She raised issues about the Metropolitan police in London and she will know that, following proposals from a number of hon. Members from all parties, that is the subject of today's topical debate, so all those issues can be discussed then. I shall consider her suggestions for a topical debate on the subject of Transport for London.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned what she alleged was a lack of care for pregnant women. She should know that since we came to government there are more midwives than there were under the Conservative Government, that each midwife deals with fewer births and can therefore give greater care to pregnant women, and that there is a lower number of deaths of women and babies at birth. I suggest that she focus on the quality of care and the outcome for the mother and the baby, which is what really matters. The outcomes for mothers and babies are improving. Of course, no one wants the uncertainty that comes when a woman who expects to give birth in a particular place has to be moved to a different hospital, but sometimes, such as when there is a question about intensive care facilities, there has to be a transfer. By and large, I would not want the right hon. Lady to give the impression that midwifery services are deteriorating. They are not; they are improving. Of course, they could always be improved further, and the Government will endeavour to ensure that that happens.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned the question of careers advice in schools in relation to our armed forces. The Government strongly back the single services team, which goes into about 1,000 schools at the invitation of those schools and tells children about the work that goes on in the Army. Schools have a number of visits from people from all walks of life, and it is obviously right that the forces should be part of that, at the invitation of the school.
	The right hon. Lady's last issues were a basket of party political point scoring, so I will not respond to them.

Keith Vaz: When can we have a debate on the excellent Byron review, which was published this morning? It accepts finally, and for the first time, that children can be affected by violent video games and access to the internet, that that process needs to be monitored carefully, and that we need a new partnership between parents and the industry. Will the Government accept the recommendations in full? If they are prepared to accept them, when can the House debate the matter, as so many Members on both sides are keen to do so?

Harriet Harman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his long-standing work on and concern about these issues. That would be a good subject for a topical debate, and I accept what he says as a proposal for such a debate. I thank Tanya Byron for her work. It is common sense that there should be clear labelling so that we can understand the different levels of videos and games. She is absolutely right that there needs to be joint work and that responsibility lies with the Government, the industry and parents, who all need to take action and work together on this.
	I want, too, to acknowledge the work of the Internet Watch Foundation, which works with the industry and provides a hotline for parents. The Government accept the findings of the Byron report. We will produce an action plan, but before that it would be a good idea to have a debate in the House.

Simon Hughes: May I follow the last exchange by joining the tribute to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee? I support the call for a debate on the labelling of videos and also on the management of amusement arcade machines, which often have equally violent scenes. It is obvious nonsense that we have never managed to get a grip on the sort of violence youngsters can see in places to which they have easy access. If we can debate that soon, it would be welcome.
	On the Housing and Regeneration Bill, may I couple the protest that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made with a reminder to the Leader of the House that she said on the Floor of the House that, when the Government tabled a large number of new clauses or amendments, she would consider providing extra time so that that did not eat into the time for consideration of Opposition new clauses and amendments? May I ask that, as a matter of urgency, she seeks to apply that to next week, so that all the Government business has the time that it needs, but that the amendments that the Opposition table also have the proper time? May we also have the time that the Bill really needs for Report, not the nonsense of trying to fit a quart into a pint pot on Monday?
	Later on Monday night, we will have the welcome debate on the transfer order on Northern Rock. I shall leave the substance of that issue to one side, but given the absolutely damning report on the Financial Services Authority's four major and many minor failures of scrutiny, may we have an early debate on why we have an authority that is meant to regulate but is clearly not up to regulating the banking industry?
	If the Leader of the House would rather have a wider debate, may I suggest that we have a whole-day debate in Government time on the regulation not just of the banking industry but of the water industry—people in many parts of England do not think that they are getting very good value for money—of the public utilities, for which people think that they are paying huge amounts for relatively poor service, and of the railway industry? Last weekend, we had what was called the Easter improvement programme, whereby many people did not get any rail services and many were not able to book in advance. Looking at regulation would be welcome, because it is not working in Britain. The whole idea was that regulators would be effective, not toothless watchdogs.
	I welcome the announcement that we will have a debate on Russia in Westminster Hall on 3 April. I remind the Leader of the House that she said she would look sympathetically on a debate on UK-China relations, which is no less urgent now than it was when bids were made for it in the past couple of weeks.
	The draft Constitutional Renewal Bill was published the other day, which was very welcome. Before the pre-legislative Committee starts its work, may we have a debate about the proposed role of Law Officers? It is a ring-fenced issue, and there is now a clear proposal that there should be no interference with decisions except in matters of national security, however that is defined. Some of us think that what happened over the BAE Systems prosecution brought this country into severe disrepute. We need to get out of a system in which there is clear political interference in an inquiry into whether criminal offences have been committed.
	Finally, we have had an announcement today that five police authorities—Lincolnshire, Cheshire, Leicestershire, Cleveland and Warwickshire—are to have their budgets capped, even though Lincolnshire police authority, for example, is asking for only £2 a week on council tax so that it can police Lincolnshire properly. May we have a debate urgently about these issues, so that the public can realise what nonsense the council tax system is, and that it is even more of a nonsense when councils are not allowed to raise and spend the council tax that they want? Police authorities, like councils, want to be able to get on with the job, and the Government's system is preventing them from doing so.

Harriet Harman: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman raise his final points about resources for police authorities and local government spending with my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government in the statement to follow.
	I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the Byron review and the report that has come out of it. I notice that the official Opposition jeer every time the Prime Minister announces that he is setting up a review. This was a review that he set up that has actually enabled people to put forward their views, so I hope the Opposition will think better next time they jeer at reviews. Obviously everybody in the House thinks that this review was a good idea.
	The hon. Gentleman reinforced the point that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made about Housing and Regeneration Bill amendments. I will consider it, but it is difficult to make promises because I do not want to create unrealistic expectations having already announced the business. Because of the lengthy debate that we had on Europe, there is a queue of important Second Readings that we need to get to. I sympathise with his point, but I cannot promise that I will be able to do anything about it. I shall certainly consider it.
	On Northern Rock, as the hon. Gentleman said, there will be a debate next week on the order. I think that the FSA has produced a frank report, and lessons need to be and will be learned. The Treasury Committee has also produced a report and the Government are considering its recommendations. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not write off all regulators, as regulation is very important.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of UK-China relations. He will know that there is a debate on the subject of Tibet in Westminster Hall next week and I am sure that several hon. Members will seek to use that opportunity.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the role of the Law Officers, and that will be addressed in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill. During the course of our debate on that Bill, he will no doubt be able to repeat the points that he has just made, only even more fully and at greater length.

Laura Moffatt: The issue of children has rightly come up already in business questions. Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider a debate on the importance of play? The excellent children's plan published earlier this month demonstrates that organised play for children is a key part of their development. I want this debate to put off local authorities that are short-sightedly thinking of closing play centres on financial grounds alone. I want the issues properly explored to stop them doing so.

Harriet Harman: No local authority should cut play services. The Government have put an extra £250 million into children's play services and I know that my hon. Friend has been a great champion of children's services in Crawley. If the Conservative council in Crawley is cutting children's play services, it should not do so, and I suggest that my hon. Friend applies for an Adjournment debate.

Nicholas Soames: Would the right hon. and learned Lady remind her ministerial colleagues of the importance of timely and full responses to parliamentary questions? Will she also tell them that it is unacceptable to reply to Members by merely pointing out to them that the answer may be found in a departmental annual report or some other obscure document? If a parliamentary question is asked, it should receive a reply in full.  [ Interruption. ]

Harriet Harman: Some of my colleagues invite me to say that the hon. Gentleman should read the departmental report, but I sympathise with him. If the report is available, it is not much more trouble to give a full answer. Parliamentary answers should be full and helpful. The House is holding Government Departments and agencies to account and replies should not be provided grudgingly—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Brian Iddon: Since the introduction of the congestion charge in London, I have noticed a significant increase in the number of pedal cyclists using the roads. Many of them unfortunately commit offences, such as going down one-way streets the wrong way, ignoring keep-left bollards and proceeding through red traffic lights. [Interruption.] May we have a debate next week on road safety for pedal cyclists?

Harriet Harman: I will raise that point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Obviously, we want more people to use green methods of transport, such as public transport, buses, tubes, trains, walking and cycling, but we do not want cyclists to break the law and put other people at risk. I know that the issue has been treated as a bit of a laughing matter by some Opposition Members, but it puts pedestrians and other road users at risk when people think that there is one rule for them and another for everyone else. I am waiting for Opposition Members to agree with me on that point as well.

Elfyn Llwyd: May we have a debate in Government time on prison over-crowding and the effect on sentencing? The National Association of Probation Officers tells me that 80 per cent. of the 42 probation areas have reported great problems in providing the supervisory service that the courts require. It gives examples:
	"Restrictions involve the non-availability of unpaid work; cancellation of one-to-one programmes; and major problems of delays with domestic violence programmes, substance abuse programmes, and community and internet sex offender programmes."
	In some areas of south Wales staff have been told not actively to recommend supervision for foreign nationals, because they need interpreters, and they cost money.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman may know that there has been a 67 per cent. increase in resources for the very important work of the probation service since we came into government. We want to see more coming out of that. The public are entitled to expect good supervision for those serving non-custodial sentences and we want to see less prison over-crowding and more people appropriately given non-custodial sentences. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consider applying for an Adjournment debate to discuss the situation in Wales, which I know is of concern.

Helen Southworth: I also welcome the excellent report by Dr. Tanya Byron. In supporting the request for a debate, I would ask that we also consider the work carried out by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, and how we can co-ordinate our response to both the review and the centre.

Harriet Harman: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the report. She makes the important point that the Byron report offers an opportunity to bring together and learn from all the other good services that exist to help parents and the industry to make progress. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre is one example.

Michael Spicer: Will there be votes before the summer recess on the Baker report on pay and the Members Estimate Committee's report on Members' allowances?

Harriet Harman: Yes, there will. The House resolved on 24 January to refer the question of setting Members' pay—including a comparator and a mechanism so that we do not have to vote on our own pay—to Sir John Baker for a review. It also agreed that his review should report back with proposals for the House to vote on before it rises for the summer recess. At the same time, the House agreed that all the questions of allowances should be referred to the Members Estimate Committee, chaired by the Speaker, for a root and branch review. Proposals in that regard will also come back to the House to be voted on before the summer recess, so that the whole situation in relation to pay and allowances can be sorted out, the House can work properly, and the public can have confidence in the system.

Ann Cryer: May we have an early debate on the standards of care in residential and nursing homes for elderly people? I understand that the Human Rights Act 1998, which already applies to local authority homes, will be extended to private homes if residents are sponsored by local authorities, and I welcome that. However, I still have deep and abiding concerns about neglect of the elderly in some of those establishments.

Harriet Harman: I will draw the points that my hon. Friend makes to the attention of the relevant Secretaries of State. The work of the inspectorates is very important, and I will take up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice the point that my hon. Friend made about the extension of the Human Rights Act to services that are not provided directly by public authorities, but on their behalf.

Alan Beith: Why is the Leader of the House bypassing Committees of this House, including the Justice Committee, the Public Administration Committee and the Lords Constitution Committee, by tabling a motion for a Joint Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny on the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill? Does she realise that that will lead to duplication of work for members of the Committee and for witnesses? Like other recent cases when Joint Committees have been set up without consultation, it has given rise to strong objections from other Committee Chairmen.

Harriet Harman: There is certainly no intention to bypass any processes in this House; far from it. However, it is not unprecedented for the Government to propose to the House—I tabled such a proposal today—that there be a Joint Committee of both Houses to scrutinise important legislation. That is what we are proposing—subject to the consideration and agreement of this House—in respect of the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill. Much of the Justice Committee's important work fed into that Bill, and I am sure that it and other Committees of the House will provide their own scrutiny and will contribute to the Bill.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my concern about the fact that clauses relating to prostitution were among the many clauses dumped from the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill while it was being considered in the other place? As she is aware, a team of Ministers is considering how the issue is dealt with in other countries. Will she ensure that when they report, an early opportunity is taken to legislate, including getting rid of fines for women in prostitution?

Harriet Harman: I take my hon. Friend's point seriously, and she has done as much work as anybody, if not more work than most, on tackling the problems of prostitution. Originally I greatly regretted the fact that the Government had had to withdraw the clauses on prostitution because of time constraints on the Bill, but on reflection it was no bad thing, because as my hon. Friend says, there is an ongoing review of prostitution, which will take six months. At the end of it, we can look again at the whole system for dealing with prostitution. I agree with her that women in prostitution are victims and should be protected, and it is the men who use and abuse prostitutes who should be treated as offenders. They are the problem, not women who are prostitutes.

Michael Jack: The Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform made an important speech yesterday advocating the opportunities for the United Kingdom nuclear industry that would result from an expanded number of nuclear power stations. Today, the Prime Minister and President Sarkozy are coming to some form of agreement about Britain and France and the future of our nuclear industry. Will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made to clarify the fact that any agreement reached between President Sarkozy and the Prime Minister will not in any way inhibit the opportunity for all players—including companies such as Toshiba Westinghouse, in my constituency—to offer solutions for the future of our nuclear power industry?

Harriet Harman: It certainly will not be precluded in the way that the right hon. Gentleman fears that it will be. Obviously, there is a lot of discussion on the new generation of nuclear power to be had between us and other countries in Europe, particularly France, on issues such as tackling waste and dealing with technical skills. I hope that his fears will not be realised, but I will bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Michael Clapham: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1113, in my name?
	 [That this House welcomes the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommendation of November 2007 that the prescribed disease chronic obstructive pulmonary disease be extended to include those exposed to coal dust during screen work on the colliery surface for a minimum period of 40 years to 1983; and calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to complete its assessment of the recommendation as soon as possible so that the few survivors who are eligible to claim an industrial injuries disablement benefit award can do so and discussions can begin with the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform for a full and final compensation payment.]
	The early-day motion draws attention to the fact that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommended in November that the definition of the prescribed disease COPD be extended to cover a group of workers who worked on the colliery surface, with screens, for 40 years up to 1983. That decision has been with the Department for Work and Pensions for more than four months. Given that the group of workers concerned are very elderly, will she urge that a decision be made quickly, so that men who are eligible can claim industrial injuries disablement benefit, and can explore whether there is the possibility of reaching a full and final compensation settlement similar to that paid to their colleagues who worked underground?

Harriet Harman: Thanks to my hon. Friend's work and the work done by a number of other hon. Members, since this Government came to power we have had the biggest compensation programme in the world. However, he raises a further important point, and I will write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to remind him that he needs to get on with making the decision, because the tragic truth is that time is not on the side of people who suffer from such terrible diseases.

Alan Reid: The Leader of the House will be aware that the laws on succession to the Crown discriminate on the grounds both of religion and of sex. I was disappointed that the Government did not take the opportunity offered by the Constitutional Renewal Bill to address that discrimination, which I am sure she will agree is unacceptable in modern society. May we have an early statement of the Government's intentions on the matter?

Harriet Harman: Unless it is outwith the scope of the Bill, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could propose an amendment on the subject; then the House could debate it.

George Young: May I strongly endorse the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and urge the Leader of the House to reconsider the decision to refer the draft constitutional Bill to a Joint Committee?
	On Monday we are to debate a Ways and Means resolution on the Housing and Regeneration Bill. The Leader of the House may know that it completed its Public Bill Committee stage eight weeks ago. The Department for Communities and Local Government waited until virtually the last day, and then tabled 37 pages of amendments. Will she ensure that when the Minister opens the debate on the Ways and Means resolution, he or she begins with a contrite apology to the House for that cavalier treatment?

Harriet Harman: I think that the majority of the amendments are drafting amendments, tidying-up measures and responses to concerns raised in Committee. As for the time that elapsed before the Bill came back to the House, it is partly owing to the fact that we spent an awful lot of time discussing Europe in the meantime; it also afforded the opportunity to draft measures, which will come before the House. However, I take the point that hon. Members have made, and I will raise it with the Secretary of State concerned.

Sammy Wilson: Last week the security forces in Northern Ireland were on high alert for a Real IRA offensive. At the same time, four BBC journalists were arrested in the presence of leading Real IRA activists on their way to a promotion of a show of strength. Given that the BBC is a publicly funded body, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate, so that the House can join the Chief Constable in expressing outrage at the BBC promoting terrorism at a time when we are trying to bury it in Northern Ireland, and at its pursuing sensational stories instead of pursuing stability in Northern Ireland?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman has made a heartfelt point, and although it is not for Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to make editorial decisions about the BBC, I will certainly raise his point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who I am sure will share the hon. Gentleman's views.

Douglas Hogg: Might I suggest to the Leader of the House that we have a debate next week on the legislative process? That would enable many of us to suggest that the explanatory memoranda published should try to set out the reasons for a Bill and identify the problems that it is intended to address. At the moment, an explanatory memorandum simply spells out the detail of a Bill, and does not give people sufficient notice of why the Bill has been introduced in the first place.

Harriet Harman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point, and we have tried to make progress in that respect. When we publish the Government's draft legislative programme, we set out all the Bills that we propose to include in it, together with an explanation of the problem that the Bill is supposed to solve. We try to do that, and put Bills out for consultation, too. In addition, last week I put forward our proposals for post-legislative scrutiny, which would allow us to see whether legislation matches up with the intentions behind it. It is a reality check to see whether an Act has done what it was intended to do.

John Hemming: Guidelines from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs relating to tax credits, which I believe are a wrong interpretation of the law, imply that people whose annual return is sent in late have to pay back all their tax credit. May we have a debate on the merits of that rather silly rule, which means that if an annual return is lost in the post, people have to repay all their tax credits?

Harriet Harman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could apply for an Adjournment debate on that. I know that it is a subject of concern to many hon. Members.

Andrew MacKay: As the Leader of the House seems to be in a responsive mood, may I refer her to next Monday's business? The House faces the problem of considerable congestion, because the Housing and Regeneration Bill, with all those Government amendments—and Opposition amendments as well—is likely to take the whole day, yet we also have an important order on Northern Rock to debate. Will she reflect and come back to us to let us know how that can all be properly resolved?

Harriet Harman: As I said, I have sympathy with the points raised on that matter. I also recognise that although the Government may say that the amendments are technical and drafting, until hon. Members have had time to read through them all and work out what they mean, they cannot necessarily be satisfied that that is the case. It is not desirable, obviously, for there to be large numbers of amendments, but as I have announced the business, and as we are tight for time, with a queue of important Bills awaiting Second Reading, I am not sure whether it will be possible to make extra time at this stage. I will consider it.

Alistair Carmichael: May we have an early debate on the report published today by the Independent Asylum Commission, which concludes that our asylum system operates with a "culture of disbelief" and comes often to "perverse and unjust decisions"? If that is true of our system, that system has probably been shaped by the tenor of debate on the issue in recent years. A debate on the report would offer us an opportunity in the House to begin a new sort of debate on the subject of asylum, and perhaps give us a system that would no longer be described as a "blemish" on our international reputation.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make those points at greater length on 22 April, when there will be a debate on the immigration rules. I note that the Independent Asylum Commission said that the system was "improved and improving". Certainly, we would all agree that it needs to improve further.

John Bercow: May I reiterate the request just made for a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House, not on immigration policy but on asylum policy? Even if the right hon. and learned Lady does not agree with the verdict of the Independent Asylum Commission that the Government's current policy
	"falls seriously below the standards to be expected of a humane and civilised society",
	does she at least accept that in respect of Sudan, Zimbabwe and Iran there is a growing body of evidence that people being returned to those places are at risk—because of their tribal allegiance, their political views or their sexual orientation—of imprisonment, torture, death, or a grisly combination of all three?

Harriet Harman: I will look at the points that the hon. Gentleman raises and consider whether the best response from the Government is to give some time—but the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members could also raise those points in the April recess Adjournment debate next Thursday. That is one opportunity, but I will reflect on the hon. Gentleman's points.

Lembit �pik: In order to get through all the amendments to the Housing and Regeneration Bill on Monday, we will have to cover one page full of amendments every nine minutes. Even John McCririck cannot speak that quickly. The Leader of the House attempts to reassure us by saying that those are drafting amendments responding to concerns expressed in Committee. It is not for her to say that. Does she agree that we need more time for us to be able to carry out our function of scrutiny, rather than reducing the scrutiny process to a lottery, whereby we will not have a proper chance to consider more than 100 amendments that the Government say are necessary but do not have the time to justify?

Harriet Harman: I note that the hon. Gentleman is adding to the points that have been made by other hon. Members; I will not take up any further time by repeating what I have already said in response.

Mark Field: I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about maternity and midwifery services. The issue is the quantity, not of the quality, of those services. I hope that the Leader of the House will give some attention to that. On the regulation of supermarkets, the right hon. and learned Lady knows that there have been a plethora of Competition Commission and Office of Fair Trading reports over the past decade or so. Will she ensure that we have a full debate in Government time on all the issues to do with the regulation of supermarkets?

Harriet Harman: That is a good idea. I am glad if the hon. Gentleman's party is going to support regulation, which it previously seemed to be wholly against. If the Opposition have seen the point of proper regulation of markets I welcome that, and I will consider his proposal. He also mentioned maternity services. I note that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) will personally sample those maternity services next week, and we will expect a report back to the House. May I wish him and his wife the very best of luck?

David Heath: May we have a debate on the Rural Payments Agency? We all know about the fiascos of previous years, but I have recently being trying to help one of my constituents, Mrs. Portch of Gilcombe farm near Bruton, and neither she nor anyone in my office can contact anyone in the Rural Payments Agency who has any authority, or even knowledge of their own systems. At least two of the people who answered the helpline indicated that their short-term contracts were about to end, and they did not know whether anyone would be in post this time next month. Is it all going wrong again?

Harriet Harman: I will raise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and in particular I will ask him to deal with the individual case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and ensure that he writes to him forthwith in respect of that case and the system generally.

Julian Brazier: I welcome the right hon. and learned Lady's earlier pledge of a debate on the Byron report. May we have a Government response to the very worrying announcements by a group of former airline pilots yesterday, supported by a growing number of scientists, about the dangers of contamination of the air supply in airliners by organophosphates from the engines? The scientist who most recently joined the supporters of that case is the chief scientific adviser to the Royal Australian Air Force. For months and months the matter has gone from one committee to another, meeting behind closed doors. There has been a refusal to co-operate with the American inquiry by the Federal Aviation Administration. Is it not time we had a full public inquiry?

Harriet Harman: I will refer the hon. Gentleman's comments to my colleagues in the Department for Transport. Perhaps the subject is one that Ministers there might consider for a written ministerial statement.

Julian Lewis: When the Leader of the House has had a chance to check the figures, may we have a statement from her on how much it costs each year to screen letters and packages sent to Ministers and Members of the House for explosive or other hostile devices? Does she agree that it will be possible to save all that money in future if the process becomes redundantif, for any reason, a comprehensive list of Members' private addresses is ever published on the internet?

Harriet Harman: I do not want to say too much on the matter of hon. Members' addresses because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the question whether there is an obligation under the Freedom of Information Act to publicise hon. Members' addresses is before the courts, and they will adjudicate on it. However, I recognise the points that he makes about security, and no doubt those points will be made strongly before the court.

Mark Harper: Is the Leader of the House aware that in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, part 6the ominously named Final Provisionresurrects a clause that was in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill to give Ministers the power to revoke Acts of Parliament by order? One of the well-known political websites says that, like a vampire, the Destroy Parliament clause has returned. Will she take the opportunity today to drive a stake through its heart?

Harriet Harman: No, I certainly will not. If it is agreed, as I propose, that the Bill should be handled in this way, the Joint Committee, which will have 11 Members of this House and 11 Members of the House of Lords, will have time to scrutinise it in great depth.

Philip Hollobone: Proposals have been advanced to transform two schools in Kettering into academies. The extra investment in local education will be widely welcomed by local residents. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families about when a final announcement about the proposal will be made, and an assurance that it will indeed be two schools that are transformed into academies, not just one?

Harriet Harman: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman write to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families on that matter.

Council Tax

John Healey: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on council tax and the action that the Government propose to take with authorities that have set excessive budgets for 2008-09.
	Today the Department for Communities and Local Government has released figures showing that the average council tax increase in England next year will be 4 per cent. That continues the downward trend in council tax increases, and it is the lowest average increase in council tax for 14 years. There are three reasons for that. The first relates to central Government funding: next year will be the 11th successive year in which central Government have increased funding for local government by more than the rate of inflation. Since 1997 our funding for councils has risen by 39 per cent. in real terms; by 2010-11 the central Government grant for local government will have increased by 45 per cent. above inflation.
	The second reason relates to local authorities. Local councils, not central Government, set their own budgets and council tax. The figures show that, in the main, local authorities are recognising their responsibility to local residents, making hard choices about local priorities, and above all, continuing to achieve efficiencies. I very much welcome that. We have made 385 million available over the next three years to support local government improvement and efficiency.
	The third reason is council tax capping itself. I know that it is unpopular among authorities, but they know that the Government are prepared to use their reserve powers to protect taxpayers from excessive council tax increases. We said that for 2008-09 we expected to see average council tax increases of substantially below 5 per cent. We said that we were prepared to act if necessary. We said that that would apply to all authorities. The Chancellor made that clear in his comprehensive spending review statement, and I made it clear on 6 December during my statement to the House on the provisional local government settlement. I set it out again in a letter to all local authority leaders that month.
	Next year will see the second lowest average increase since council tax was introduced in 1993. I welcome that. Almost two thirds of authorities have set council tax increases below 4.1 per cent., nearly one in six have set increases below 2.5 per cent., and a further 21 have either set no increase at all or are reducing their council tax bills. I know, however, that many householders are finding that their finances are under pressureparticularly those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners. So given that some authorities are setting double-digit increases, it is right that we should step in to help protect council tax payers. That is why I want to set out for the House today the action that we propose to take over the weeks ahead.
	The legislation requires the Secretary of State to determine her excessiveness principles, one of which must relate to an authority's budget requirementwhich, broadly speaking, is the authority's spending financed through formula grant and council tax. The Secretary of State can also determine other principles and, as in previous years, the Government have decided to set a second principle based on council tax. The principles, applied equally to all classes of authority, are that an authority's budget next year will be excessive if it has set a budget requirement increase of more than 5 per cent. for next year compared with 2007-08, and a council tax increase of more than 5 per cent. in the same period.
	Only authorities that have exceeded both principles are subject to action. For 2008-09, eight authorities have exceeded those principles. They are Portsmouth city council and the police authorities of Bedfordshire, Cheshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Surrey and Warwickshire. Those have all set budget increases above 5 per cent., up to almost 7 per cent.with the exception of Lincolnshire, which has set a budget requirement increase of 29 per cent.
	In addition, four police authorities have set council tax increases of more than 10 per cent. Warwickshire's is 13 per cent., Leicestershire's 15 per cent., Cheshire's 17 per cent., and Lincolnshire's 79 per cent. That list of designated authorities is made up predominantly of police authorities, yet in the past 10 years we have seen a massive increase in police numbersan extra 14,000 since 1997. We have also more than doubled investment in policing, by an extra 3.6 billion over the same period. In addition, in December the Government announced the police funding settlement for the next three years, which will give each police authority a guaranteed increase of at least 2.5 per cent. in each of the next three years, with more going to those with the greatest need.
	Let me be clear: today I am not announcing a cap on the council tax of those authorities, although I am confirming the start of a process that could lead to that. I am announcing the start of that process, not its conclusion. During the coming weeks, we will listen carefully to the representations that all authorities make to us. All authorities now have a right under the legislation to challenge our proposal. They have a right to raise any specific issues that they believe justify their budget and council tax increases. Before reaching final decisions we will consider carefully and seriously all representations that authorities make. Today I am writing to the chairs of all eight authorities confirming that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing and I will meet them should they wish to make their case in person.
	Our final decision could be to nominate an authority, which means either capping the authority for the following year or setting a notional budget for 2008-09 that would provide the basis for judging future increases. In this case, there would be no re-billing and authorities would also have a further chance to make representations. Our final decision could be to cap an authority in-year. We could either confirm the cap proposed today or set a different cap. Capped authorities would then need to re-bill for a lower council tax.
	Today my officials are writing to the designated authorities, and that will provide the legal basis for informing them of the principles that the Secretary of State has proposed. At the end of the process, I will either inform or seek the approval of the House, as required. It will be the House that takes the final decision on any contested in-year capping.
	In conclusion, although I am disappointed that it has been necessary to take action this year, I make no apologies for it. Authorities can have been in no doubt about the Government's approach. Keeping council tax under control is and will remain a top priority for the Government, and we will act to protect council tax payers from excessive increases.

Bob Neill: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving me advance sight of the statement. That said, there is rather more behind the bald lines of the statement than meets the eye. The background is this: the Government inherited a system of local government finance that worked. Ministers declared in 1998:
	The council tax is working well as a local tax. It has been widely accepted and is generally very well understood.
	However, after 10 years of hard Labouras we are going to debate policing later, the phrase hard Labour is not inappropriatecouncil tax is now the most unpopular tax in Britain. That is not because the concept is flawed, but because people have been ground down by the year-on-year increases in council tax.
	The Minister talked about increases. Will he confirm that an increase of only 4 per cent. actually means a 53 increase on band D bills from April ? Furthermore, does he accept that council tax bills have exactly doubled since 1997, taking the typical bill on a band D home to almost 1,400 a year? Can he tell us where the 14 billion extra a year raised in council tax has gone? Will he concede that council tax rises are equivalent to an extra 4p on the basic rate of income tax?
	Does the Minister accept that his comments about pensioners and those on fixed incomes will ring a little hollow to the many people already pressed by council tax increases and other costs of living under this Government? Is it not rightas he hints, but did not explicitly saythat, added to utility bills, council tax hikes will hit those on fixed incomes hardest? Is he prepared to admit that, for a typical pensioner, one third of the increase in the basic state pension has been snatched back by higher council tax? If he is serious about helping pensioners, will he explain why the Government provided a 200 payment for pensioners' council tax in March 2005, but never repeated it? In the absence of an explanation, the less charitable might feel that that was an example of pure pre-election cynicism by the Government. Has the Department estimated the number of pensioners who are likely to end up going to court, and perhaps to jail, as a consequence of their difficulties in paying this year?
	The Minister referred to funding settlements. Perhaps he also ought to think about the funding drivers of council tax. Will he concede that beneath the bald figures is the continuing pressure of increased funding demands on local government? For example, there is cost-shunting from health service organisations, and the passing on from central Government to local government of commitments and obligations that are not fully funded, with council tax taking the strain as a consequence. Those commitments and obligations come from Whitehall initiatives, regulations and burdens imposed from the centre, but with the council tax payer picking up the bill.
	The Minister commended the behaviour of local authorities in seeking to restrain council tax. I agree with that, but might he have the grace to concede that that downward trend is undoubtedly linked to the fact that my party now controls more local authorities than his party or the third party, and has more councillors? Will he put his rhetoric into action and encourage more councils to follow the example of Hammersmith and Fulham council, which has cut council tax for a second year, but has, none the less, invested about 1.5 million over two years in 24-hour, seven-day-a-week neighbourhood policing? Will he tell his party's mayoral candidate not to make such ill-informed attacks on local authorities in his own bailiwick in future?  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) must not get so excited. I know that he has wandered in and is in a state of some agitation, but we are dealing with a statement.
	Let us consider the consequences of capping. I agree with the Minister that some of the rises in police precepts are unacceptable, but will he accept that drivers to which he does not refer include unfunded initiatives from Whitehall, such as the 101 non-emergency number, a failure to fund neighbourhood police community support officers, and the consequences of 24-hour licensing? I agree that it is no coincidence that unelected police authorities have generally imposed the highest rises in council tax. Does he accept that that says something about the nature of governance in such circumstances? He might want to consider that a strong argument for my party's proposal that directly elected police commissioners set those levels. Rather than the Minister imposing a cap centrally, would he be prepared to consider the far more responsive, democratic and localist solution of submitting council tax increases to a democratic referendum?
	Families throughout the country are already struggling to cope with the rising cost of living, and council tax increases will not help. When the Minister checks the figures, I hope that he will concede that even a 4 increase pushes bills up to 115 for a typical household. For the sake of completeness, will he confirm that council tax has doubled under this Government, while councils have been obliged to cut or to impose charges for libraries, social services and weekly rubbish collections? Will he concede that the underlying thrust of his statement is that people are paying more and getting less?

John Healey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesies, but I am astounded by his assertion that we inherited from the last Conservative Government a system that worked for local government. He should ask local government what it was like, in the four years before 1997, under the last Tory Government, not to have real terms increases in funding, such as the ones they have had under Labour, but to have four successive years of real-terms cuts. He talks about council tax rises in the year ahead, yet, despite professing concern about the level of the rises, he fails to welcome the fact that it is the second lowest level of rises since council tax was introduced. He does not recognise that that has happened through a combination of increasing investment in local government and increasing freedom for local government to set and run its finances.
	No tax is ever popular, and I recognise the resistance to the level of certain council taxes. The issue provokes strong feelings, but council tax benefit provides help for those on low incomes, including pensioners, and we are working hard to improve take-up. From October, we will change the system so that more pensioners who are entitled to help get it, and I would have hoped that we could get the hon. Gentleman's support, and all-party support, for that move.
	The hon. Gentleman accepts that some of the rises are unacceptable, which I welcome. He would accept, therefore, that we are right to take a tough stance at this stage. Although he did not say it, I hope that he accepts that we are right to ensure that all eight authorities I mentioned have the chance to put their case about the specific circumstances that they believe justify the increase in budget and council tax they propose. My right hon. Friend the policing Minister will do just that over the next three weeks.
	Finally, I turn to some of the party political points that the hon. Gentleman tried to make. He cites bills for band D properties, but he knows that fewer than one in six households throughout the country pay council tax at band D. If one looks at the average cost of council tax per household, one finds that this year, as last year, Labour councils cost households less, and that rises for households under Labour-controlled authorities are lower than those in Tory areas. Despite what he says, low bills have little to do with Tory-controlled councils. Of the authorities that are setting either zero-increase or reduced council tax for next year, half are Tory and half are Labour, including Labour-controlled Hackney, Labour Oldham and Labour Bolton. There is even one that is controlled by the Liberal Democrats.
	The idea that a referendum is a new proposal, or the right way ahead, is faintly ridiculous. It is a double con. It is not new, and it does not change the fact that it will be the Government, through Parliament, who ultimately take decisions about the appropriate level of council tax capping.

Julia Goldsworthy: I, too, thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for letting the Today programme know this morning, which gave me considerably more notice.
	The Minister spoke about the generosity of the funding settlement for local government. Will he acknowledge that, as I think he said, this year's settlement is the tightest for a decade and that it will leave millions of pensioners and families facing inflation-busting council tax increases, which they will struggle to pay? Below 5 per cent. is still above inflation, and there are still problems with the uptake of council tax benefit.
	Will the Minister also acknowledge that today's statement will leave millions of households, as well as the affected authorities, in confusion? Bills are already on doormats, direct debits have already been set up and it is probably too late to change them, and we still do not know what the end result of the process that he has initiated today will be, yet we are now just a week away from the new financial year.
	Does the Minister accept that the statement represents an above-inflation increase in the costs that local government faces, at a time when it is taking on additional responsibilities that the Government have imposed without sufficient resources? The experience of Portsmouth, which was named in the statement, is a case in point. The Secretary of State promised a rise in Government support of 1 per cent. above inflation. The reality was a 1 per cent. cash-termsthat is, below inflationincrease, or a real-terms cut. Will he acknowledge that?
	In addition, 2 per cent. of the 5 per cent. rise that Portsmouth city council has proposed will be spent on bailing the Government out of the concessionary bus fare scheme that they are imposing, which we discussed earlier this week. Will the Government accept that that is their responsibility? The city council set a zero precept, which reduced council tax to 4.8 per cent. The council has been responsible not because of the Government's actions, but in spite of them?
	The other named authorities are all police authorities. Will the Minister acknowledge that after this statement police authorities will remain underfunded? The tight police funding settlement has left police authorities with little choice. I notice that rural authorities, rather than metropolitan authorities, consistently face such difficulties. This year's and next year's settlements represent a real-terms freeze rather than a real-terms increase. That highlights the fundamental flaw in the funding formula. Rural areas are having to make up the shortfall through council tax.
	There is a need for more democratic accountability, but as well as the measures that the Minister has announced in the statement, will he commit to undertake a fundamental review of the funding formula, which might turn out to be the problem at the heart of the announcements that the named police authorities have made? Does he accept that there is a need for investment in those areas, including Cheshire, where Garry Newlove was murdered outside his home? The council tax rise was earmarked to provide 1.6 million for neighbourhood policing and 2.6 million to recruit additional officers. Is the Minister saying that that additional investment is not required in those areas? Will he confirm that a total of about 20 million of funding will be cut from the named authorities?
	The decision announced today, at the last possible moment, is an attempt to claim that the council tax system, which the Conservatives support, is a success. Does the Minister accept that the decision will create administrative chaos? The Department is denying the inescapable fact, which the Lyons report pointed out but which the Government are ignoring, that council tax is not fit for purpose and never was, not even when the previous Conservative Government created it. Will the Minister accept that it is pointless tinkering with a broken system? Capping is misleading and it conceals the truth about rising bills, many of which exceed 5 per cent. when precepts are included.
	Will the Minister acknowledge that it is time that the council tax was abolished and replaced with a fairer system of local income tax, which would be based on the ability of pensioners and those on fixed incomes to pay? Would it not be better to give local authorities responsibility and do the right thing by axing the unfair council tax?

John Healey: As the Minister previously responsible for the Office for National Statistics and legislation to reinforce and protect the integrity of national statistics, I and my Department respect absolutely the fact that the deadline for the publication of our council tax increases was 9.30 this morning, whatever the Today programme may have run.
	Secondly, every authority knows that it must take into account the risk and potential cost of re-billing if it chooses to set budget or council tax rises that may be excessive. I encourage local authorities to examine and explain that over the next three weeks, if they choose to make a general case to us, as I hope they will.
	Thirdly, the hon. Lady put in some special pleadinggetting in early, I guessfor Portsmouth. She would probably be best advised to let Portsmouth city council do that for itself. Indeed, the council leader will receive a letter from me inviting it to do just that.
	The new right to free travel, which will be available to more than 11 million pensioners and disabled people from next week, will be funded in full by the Government, through an extra 212 million next year.
	In December, the Home Secretary guaranteed every police authority an increase of at least 2.5 per cent. in each of the next three years, with more money going to those areas that need it most.
	Finally, on local policing, I would have thought that the hon. Lady welcomes the fact that there will be a greater front-line policing presence in every neighbourhood in the country, with a dedicated local team in each one from next week.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. May I therefore ask that we have single, brief supplementary questions, with brief replies accordingly?

Andy Reed: My hon. Friend the Minister is a generous person and has already agreed to take some recommendations and representations. Leicestershire's rurality is not necessarily taken into account in the formula, so will he ensure that he considers not just the 15 per cent. increase but whether the funding formula is fair, which is why Leicestershire has responded as it has?

John Healey: I reassure my hon. Friend that I will consider any representations that Leicestershire police authority wishes to put over the next three weeks. If he or any other hon. Member wishes, I will also consider any representations that they make in support of any the authorities that I am designating today.

Edward Leigh: Will the Minister acknowledge that policing in Lincolnshire is in crisis? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said from the Front Bench, the 76 per cent. rise is unacceptable, but so is the fact that we are the lowest funded police authority per head of population, at 11 million lower. The Minister must act and acknowledge our difficulties by increasing our grant by 3.4 million, as he did last year, and capping the authority.

John Healey: I do not and will not accept that policing in Lincolnshire is in crisis. I accept that there are problems with policing in Lincolnshire; indeed, my right hon. Friend the policing Minister and I have looked at financing for the policing authority. If, over the next three weeks, the police authority wants to make the case that it believes can justify that budget and council tax increase, I would welcome that and we would give it all due consideration.

Christine Russell: Chester has just been named as one of the safest places to live in the UK. That is due in large part to the commitment and effectiveness of Cheshire constabulary, which has made neighbourhood policing a top priority. However, Cheshire constabulary probably has the lowest shire county precept. The Minister has generously said that he will meet hon. Members, so I hope that he will meet a delegation of Cheshire MPs.

John Healey: I will indeed meet a delegation of Cheshire MPs, when my hon. Friend might want to reiterate that crime in Cheshire is down, that police officer numbers are up and that investment in community policing is strong, as she rightly said, with more than 230 community support officers in the county, none of whom were there 10 years ago.

Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)? The Lincolnshire force is indeed in crisis, due to serious underfunding as a result of the inadequate formula. If the Minister is going to cap Lincolnshire police authority, he must bring in additional funds, this year and in the long term, through an adjustment in the formula. If additional funds are not forthcoming, the Lincolnshire force will have to address its financial problems through a substantial reduction in manpower, which would be very unsatisfactory.

John Healey: I do not make the assumption that the funding formula is somehow flawed in the case of Lincolnshire. Next year, Lincolnshire will get a rise that is significantly above the floor and therefore significantly above the level that other police authorities are receiving. However, if Lincolnshire police authority feels that it has a particular case to make, I invite it to make its case to Ministers over the next three weeks. We will then consider it.

Helen Southworth: I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has said that this will be an open process and that he will take representations. Will he take into account the fact that, despite having the lowest precept of any shire force, Cheshire police have taken a very responsible approach to the increase process, including engaging in wide public consultation? A MORI poll showed 87 per cent. support for an increase of at least 1.50 towards increased policing. The proposal received very strong support, particularly from pensioners and people on low incomes, who felt that they would most benefit from an increased police presence.

John Healey: I will take any such information into account, but I must point out to my hon. Friend that, while we are conscious of the budgets and council tax precept increases proposed by certain police authorities, it is the overall council tax bill that households are most concerned about. That is the bill that they have to pay, so it is important to keep that context in mind as well.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that Norfolk constabulary is doing a superb job of policing a large rural area? However, Her Majesty's Government, in the form of the policing Minister, are putting more tasks, obligations and targets on to its plate, many of which are not properly funded. The constabulary is therefore in an invidious position: either it cuts important police initiatives or puts more pressure on the hard-pressed council tax payer. What advice does the Minister have for that police force?

John Healey: The recorded crime and burglary statistics suggest that the hon. Gentleman is right: Norfolk constabulary is doing a good job. It is helped not least by the fact that funding for police numbers and community support officers has risen, and that the number of police support staff in the county has also risen.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am glad that the Minister is not taking action against Slough council, despite the fact that it is putting its council tax up by 4.99 per cent. As he is aware, we are concerned about the impact on Slough of inaccurate counting. Will he look into whether Slough council tax payers are getting value for money? We receive more than twice as much per head as the average Berkshire council. We receive 87 more than Reading, which is a three-star authority, yet we are only a two-star authority. Nevertheless, my electors face a significant increase in their council tax bills next year.

John Healey: All councils expect to explain not only to Ministers but to their own residents exactly how the services they provide are improving and represent good value for money. I was able to join my hon. Friend in Slough earlier this month, and experience for myself how the borough feels about the present council. I dare say that, post 1 May, we can look forward to a Labour-led council looking hard at the value for money that the present Conservative-led council has provided to the residents of Slough.

Mark Field: I must confess that I am relieved, if not surprised, that neither of my two local authorities is on the potential capping list. That is partly because City of London police will yet again need to dig into reserves, as a result of the unsatisfactory funding arrangements. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the Corporation of London, not least because of the important national and international work in relation to anti-terrorism and white-collar crime that City of London police performs on behalf of all police and the Home Office at large?

John Healey: At the risk of annoying my diary secretary, may I say that I am sure that my right hon. Friend the policing Minister and I will find time to meet the hon. Gentleman and his authority? If he will allow it, however, we will give priority over the next three weeks to the eight authorities that I have designated this afternoon.

Mike Hall: May I refer my hon. Friend back to the subject of Cheshire police authority? Even if the proposed 17 per cent. rise remains uncapped, the increase for a band D property will be 1.64 a week. Sixty-five per cent. of households in Cheshire are in band C or below. The average council tax for policing in Cheshire will be 132, while the national average is 180, so council tax payers in Cheshire will still pay 52 a year less in council tax for policing if the rate remains unchanged. The fundamental problem is that Cheshire has historically had very low council tax for policing. I believe that the Department needs to adopt a more sophisticated approach to ensure that these considerations can be taken into account before any decisions on capping are made.

John Healey: My hon. Friend speaks cogently on behalf of his county. I will take his points into account, particularly if they are captured in any case that the police authority wishes to make to me and my right hon. Friend the policing Minister over the next three weeks.

Philip Hollobone: As a member of Kettering borough council, may I ask the Minister to look again at the planning application fee regime for large-scale housing developments? If someone wants to build a house, the planning application fee is 265, but if they want to build 4,000 houses the application fee per dwelling is 12.50. Small councils such as Kettering borough council simply cannot cover the cost of processing large-scale applications. The sensitivity of these councils' budgets is such that every 50,000 of expenditure saved represents 1 per cent. on the council tax.

John Healey: I have to admit that I had not expected to take questions on Kettering borough council, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the planning Minister is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's comments. The charging system for planning services is precisely calibrated to allow councils to recover their reasonable costs, but to do no more. Kettering borough council is likely to act consistently with that principle, but if a case is made for looking into the matter we will do so.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) set out cogently the historical difficulty Cheshire police authority faces. The authority nevertheless provides services in a complex, disparate community, which requires a huge amount of co-operation with adjacent forces. My hon. Friend the Minister has been very generous in his comments and with his time, but will he make a special effort to look at the historical anomalies in Cheshire created by factors that he inherited and seek to find a way of creating an authority that has a basis for going forward over some years?

John Healey: I will look at any element of the case that an authority wishes to make to justify the budget or council tax increase that is being proposed.

Stephen O'Brien: I am sorry that I was late for the opening minutes of the Minister's statement, but I have now had the opportunity to catch up. The Minister rightly praises Cheshire's neighbourhood policing commitment, but the police authority and the chief constable have said that if they do not manage to secure an increase in funding, neighbourhood policing will have to be the first point for cuts. That seems ironic when taken with the other targets that the police authority has to meet, including anti-terrorism, particularly in relation to the adjacent Merseyside and Greater Manchester challenges and to the rurality of the area. What should Cheshire do to recalibrate the starting point, so as to address this historical problem and deficit and to ensure that we start from a point that is fair to Cheshire, rather than continuing to build in a penal regime?

John Healey: The formula for funding police authorities is consistent and it is fair to all authorities because it is based on the same criteria. I have to say that questions and elements of anti-terrorist activity are well beyond the formula and are normally provided by the Government in the form of special grants and special support. I will look further into the mattermy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government may be able to tell me when I sit downbut I would be very surprised if what I have just said were not the case for Cheshire, when it is generally the case for other authorities across the country.

Quentin Davies: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the Government's contribution to keeping overall rises in council tax down to 4 per cent., which is a fine achievement? On Lincolnshire, may I second the representations of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), as Lincolnshire indeed deserves more resources. However, nothing can justify the quite unconscionable and egregious rise in the police precept from one year to the next of 79 per cent., which translates into an additional burden of 100 on a band D taxpayer in my constituency. May I give the Minister notice that I shall be writing to him in the next 24 hours, asking him to cap Lincolnshire police authority and to designate it forthwith?

John Healey: I welcome my hon. Friend's recognition that this is indeed the second lowest ever average council tax rise in England. I look forward to receiving his submission as part of this process, which I will consider. May I tell Conservative Members that, judging from the letters and e-mails that I have personally received from Lincolnshire so far, my hon. Friend is probably more in tune with Lincolnshire residents? To date, I have not seen a single letter or e-mail that supports the rise. People are genuinely concerned about excessive council tax rises that put pressure on their ability to pay the week-to-week, month-to-month bills.

David Taylor: Notwithstanding the fact that council tax is at the very edge of acceptability for many people, I urge the Minister not to cap the Leicestershire police force and certainly not to require in-year re-billing. The authority is at the very top of the national league tables in respect of performance and overall professionalism. The current cost of policing is 2.67 a week, and the increase of 41p has been widely consulted on and broadly supported. Will he look again at authorities such as Leicestershire that are well adrift of the formula figure that they should receive? Over the last two years, it would have provided an extra 3 million a year on average, and the same is true over the next three years. When he reaches a decision, will he take into account the quality of the police force and the distance that is from the formula funding that it should receive?

John Healey: If my hon. Friend's points are part of the case put by the police authority, I will, of course, take them into account. On the question of re-billing, every authority that has set an excessive budget or council tax level went into the process with their eyes wide open. The risk of re-billing, the cost of re-billing and the practical difficulties and disruption of re-billing are part and parcel of the consequences experienced by any authority if we finally have to take a decision to cap council tax rises and require such a step to be taken.

Anthony D Wright: The level of support from the Government over the past 11 years to my local authority in Great Yarmouth and, indeed, to the Norfolk police authority is unprecedented. Speaking as a member of the Great Yarmouth borough council before 1997, I know that we had to endure cut after cut after cut under the previous Administration. However, there is a concern with respect to the police authority that with the number of rural authorities on the list for proposed capping, the formula that is being set probably presents a problem. That issue clearly needs to be addressed. Will my hon. Friend take that on board before he meets those authorities, particularly the Norfolk police authority, to which I also hope to make representations?

John Healey: My hon. Friend will, of course, be aware that the funding formula for the police is largely based on policing need, and the characteristics of the areas concerned form a part of that. I welcome his recognition of the vastly increased funding for his area, which has been part and parcel of the record level and increase of police officers, and the record level of community support officers and, of course, police support staff, who also play a very important role in the general policing effort of his county and in the rest of the country.

TOPICAL DEBATE

Policing in London

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of policing in London.
	I am pleased to move the motion, not least because, despite what some suggest, there is a good news story in the broadest sense about policing in London. At the outset of my short contribution, I want to congratulate the Metropolitan police on all the work they do for us in London and Sir Ian Blair on the leadership that he has brought to the success of policing in London.
	It is important that the people of London know and understand what the Metropolitan police have achieved over recent yearsfrom the lowest level of community support officer neighbourhood teams in each and every borough, all the way up to the leadership team around Sir Ian Blair. There are any number of suggestionssome of them simply wrongabout police numbers and capabilities, about the broad success in London, about crime and violent crime specifically, about transport safety in London and, not least, about neighbourhood policing. Many of them are not the case or simply do not stand up.
	We need to understand tooI know that everyone in the House doesthat London is very well served by the Metropolitan Police Service in the fight against terrorism. All hon. Members know that the Metropolitan police were seen at their finest in the wake of the 7/7 attack and the two subsequent failed attacks of 21/7 in London and the incident in Glasgow. Lessons are, of course, to be learned from each and every one of those instances, and they surely have been learned.

Philip Hollobone: Many of my constituents travel to and work in London, and they are very interested in policing in the capital, particularly on our transport networks. Does the Minister therefore welcome Conservative proposals to increase the number of police community support officers in the safer transport teams by 440 and to recruit an extra 50 British Transport police officers to patrol our mainline stations?

Tony McNulty: I would if those who proposed such policy developments could justify and sustain the funding for those extra PCSOs

Boris Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony McNulty: Wait a minute. What I would not accept is the costing that has been suggested so far, because it is rooted in the old Transport for London budget, so the money that is supposed to be there for 400-odd extra PCSOs on our transport network is simply not available any more. It has been spent. If the hon. Gentleman can suitably enlighten us, I would, of course, be delighted to give way.

Boris Johnson: Since the Minister asked a question, I would be delighted to enlighten him. Let me tell him that Londoners, given the choice between spending 63 million on further publicity for the Mayor of London or having 440 transport PCSOs on the buses, would rather spend 16 million, which is what I am proposing to spend, on another 440 PCSOs on the buses. Is the Minister in favour of that? Yes or no?

Tony McNulty: In the first instance when the proposal was thought up, the money was to come from Transport for London. Now, however, that and a whole series of other supposed innovations from the hon. Gentleman representing somewhere in Oxfordshire are not to come from those areas suitably designated in the first instance, but from some magical little pot rooted in the public relations budget in the Greater London authority. The slightest scrutiny would show that his overall spending plans are neither sustainable nor justified. He is as cavalier with the facts in that regard as he is in so many other aspects of his political life.

Clive Efford: I am slightly confused by the position of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) because Tory assembly member Richard Barnes has openly said of police in London:
	I don't think so much money should be spent on them.
	Conservatives have called PCSOs plastic policemen in the past, so where has this sudden support for PCSOs come from? Since the Mayor was elected, there have been 850 extra police officers on London's transport system

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Tony McNulty: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. We know that an election is forthcoming, but the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) does his case no good by traducing what is in place and the success that there has been in the London context. He cannot talk about having some sort of regard forfinally, because he has not done so for most of the time that he has been in the Housethe safety of people on London's transport network without recognising the significant work and investment that has taken place thus far. Far too often, in all that he does in his attempt to be Mayor, he treats Londoners like idiots. People have put in much hard work, whether through TFL, the British Transport police, the Metropolitan Police Service, or whatever. Day in, day out, PCSOs and front-line police officers make our transport network, buses included, far more secure than in the past. That is not to say that there is not still work to be done, but the hon. Gentleman does his case no good by trying to suggest that violent crime is going through the roof

Boris Johnson: It has.

Tony McNulty: Not in London, with the greatest respect.

Richard Ottaway: rose

Lee Scott: rose

Tony McNulty: I shall come to the outer fringe of LondonSurreyfirst and then Essex.

Richard Ottaway: Croydon is very much a part of London. May I try to take a different tack? A recent survey showed that 46 per cent. of Londoners said that they did not feel safe in their neighbourhoods at night. Does the Minister find that understandable?

Tony McNulty: Over the past few years, the safety figures for London have been going in the right direction much more readily than they ever did in the 1980s and early 1990s. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I said to his non-London colleague, that one must start from the premise that outer London boroughs are far better served with policing than they have ever been before. My borough is in exactly the same position in that there is a difference between perceived and actual levels of crime, and that is especially marked in outer London boroughs. The situation has changed enormously thanks to the embedding of safer neighbourhoods teams throughout London, but I accept that the perception is hard to shift. However, I do not do so in the stark, black-and-white, knockabout terms that he is suggesting. He has made serious contributions to London debates. Indeed, I believe that he was his party's London spokesperson for some time. I accept that the perception of crime remains a serious matter that we need to deal with.

Lee Scott: Does the Minister accept that one of the concerns of my constituents in Ilford, North and people throughout the borough of Redbridge is that they do not feel secure on buses especially? They were promised that there would be better policing on buses, but that has been an abject failure. It has not happened.

Tony McNulty: That might look nice in a central office press release, but it is simply not the case. Whoever the competitors for the mayoral election or any subsequent election, they should not treat Londoners like idiots. It is not the case that safety, and police and security presence, on our transport network and hubs has somehow diminished over the past five or 10 yearsquite the reverse. Does more need to be done? Absolutelyno one is claiming otherwisebut people should not start from a year-zero perspective, because every time that the hon. Member for Henley does so, he traduces the very good work that is done day in, day out, by our PCSOswhether in the BTP or MPS. That is not in the interests of the people of Ilford.

Andrew Love: I agree strongly with my right hon. Friend's support for the Metropolitan Police Service and the initiatives that have been undertaken in London. Does he agree that if we are congratulating the authorities on improvements and the reduction of crime over the past five years, we must include in that the Mayor of London, who has consistently supported additional police officers throughout London since his election? He has been solely responsible for the neighbourhood policing initiative that has done so much to reduce crime in local areas.

Tony McNulty: I absolutely agree. The Conservative party has had an on-offnow on, apparentlylove affair with PCSOs and all that they do. It is simply not right, Ceausescu-like, to rub out history entirely and say that the Conservatives have always been at one with the Metropolitan police's arguments on PCSOs. Some Conservative Membersnot many among the congregation todayhave spent the entire 10 years in which I have been in the House traducing the very existence of PCSOs. I am glad that that is not the case now.

Lynne Featherstone: The safer neighbourhoods teams have been a phenomenal addition and they are greatly appreciated by local people. Does the Minister agree that they need to be embedded in an estate property that is in the ward that they are policing? That is Met police policy, but it is not happening. Will he have a chat with the Metropolitan police about ensuring that that happens, especially in Highgate ward?

Tony McNulty: That is a reasonable point, whether about Highgate or elsewhere. As I have discovered in my area, it is not always possible to do that. I know that the principle of getting the teams as close as possible to the wards that they serveideally within themgoverns what the Met does, but that is not always possible. Slowly, as the teams become far more embedded, they are shifting from temporary areas across London to more satisfactory ones. Although the Met and everyone else would like to meet the aspiration that every team should be located in the ward that it serves, that is not, to be fair, entirely practical or always possible.

Mark Field: The Minister will be aware that I have supported PCSOs since the moment the idea was raised in the House.
	The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said that neighbourhood policing was to the credit of just the Mayor of London. The Mayor must be given credit for doing quite a good job, but he has achieved that only by working closely with local authorities of any political colour. In the hon. Gentleman's area, I suspect that the Conservative-controlled London borough of Enfield has worked extremely well to make such projects successful. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) will be keen to build on such partnership arrangements in the years ahead.

Tony McNulty: So keen that the hon. Member for Henley has not mentioned that at all during his entire life in the House, but that is by the bye. In fact, on the rare occasions that he has been in the Chamber, he has not troubled us terribly much with questions about any matter relating to London at all.

Joan Ryan: I find it hard to believe that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) is at all serious about fighting crime in London when he suggests that he will cut the Metropolitan police's reserve budget, which is in stark contrast to the current Mayor of London's commitment to putting an extra 1,000 uniformed police on the streets of London. Will the Minister comment on the difference that that would make? We should give the Mayor of London credit for rolling out neighbourhood policing right across London over the past two years in advance of that happening nationally, which has made a significant difference to my constituents and people throughout the whole of London.

Tony McNulty: I can only agree with my right hon. Friend. We have a candidate who has delivered substantially for London and throughout London. During that entire period, the Conservatives have gone from ice cold, to cold, to tepid and then to lukewarm, and there is now a vague recognition from them that what the Mayor, Sir Ian Blair, the MPS and the Metropolitan Police Authority have done increasingly matters to London. I welcome any latter-day Pauline conversion to the concept of neighbourhood policing throughout the country. However, I have to say that, historically, it has been rather tepid and lukewarm from the Opposition.
	I know that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has been a fan of PCSOs from the very start and that he did not cast on them the aspersions cast by others. When we get it right and police and PCSOs complement each other, things work well. I take slight issue with what he suggested in relation to the remark about the Mayor made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). It has taken the leadership of the Mayor and, I say, Sir Ian Blair to push on and push through safer neighbourhood teams in every area.
	Having said that, safer neighbourhood teams are far better and far more effective when, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, they work closely with local councils, regardless of their political colour. I am happy to report that that is happening much more. Again, I say, Please don't revise history. Somenot always just Conservative or Liberal Democrat councils, I freely admithave come late to the table, although they now understand how neighbourhood policing and neighbourhood management can work so well.

Several hon. Members: rose

Tony McNulty: I give way to Leyton and Wanstead.

Harry Cohen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Can he give an assessment of what Londoners are supposed to make of this statement by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson)? He said:
	More powers to interfere over noisy radios, dangerous dogs or truant children
	are
	legislative coercion.

Tony McNulty: I suspect that the hon. Member for Henley has had another conversion and now accepts that there are Labour, Liberal and Tory councils throughout Londonfewer Liberals, as they are not terribly good at itthat know and understand in terms of yobbish and antisocial behaviour that what we are seeking to do within the legal framework that we have established, and in partnership with localities, is working, and working effectively for London across the continuum from very early intervention to, in the end, antisocial behaviour orders.

Clive Efford: On the issue of the conversion of the Conservatives to supporting PCSOs, does my right hon. Friend recall the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition at the last Conservative party conference, in which he attacked two PCSOs from Wigan because they did not dive in, accusing them of standing and watching as a young man drowned?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing policing in London. Perhaps the Minister will respond on that.

Tony McNulty: The important point is that PCSOs have the requisite skills base for the job that they are intended for. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster suggested, they work well when complementing and supporting police; it was never the Government's intention to have them replace police. Quite what individual Members of the House or people elsewhere, from a position of total and perverse ignorance, say about specific events is not for me to comment on, especially as they took place outside London. Following your instruction, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall not do so, in particular because Wigan is outside London.

Several hon. Members: rose

Tony McNulty: I promised to come to Carshalton and on and on.

Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for giving way as he has made some unsubstantiated allegations about Liberal Democrat councils. May I encourage him to come to the London borough of Sutton to see the partnership work there, which was a trailblazer in terms of the local authority and the police making a joint appointment of someone to take on the whole range of responsibilities for tackling, among other things, antisocial behaviour?

Tony McNulty: At some stage, I shall, and I am sure that my private secretary would enjoy it enormously, seeing as he lives just down the road. Again, this is a latter-day conversion.  [Interruption.] Let me make it clear that it is latter-day conversion. It is not the case, as the hon. Gentleman would have it, thatapropos the comment made earlierall the discussions and the legislative framework around helping communities with antisocial behaviour and other things are part of the Liberal dream. They are not. I pray in aid the lamentable examples of Islington, when it was Liberal, and now, increasingly, Liberal Camden. They do not get it and simply displace the thing entirely.

Bob Neill: rose

Boris Johnson: rose

Tony McNulty: I shall give way to a rather serious London MP, rather than go out of London.

Bob Neill: Given the Minister's concern about ill-informed criticism of police in London, will he join me in condemning the outrageous observations of the Mayor of London's transport commissioner, Mr. Hendy, who threatened to cut off funding for the transport police operational command unit for having dared to criticise the safety record of the Mayor's bendy buses? That is ill-informed criticism, is it not?

Tony McNulty: A trio of lamentablesCamden, Islington and the hon. Gentleman.
	I need to say in conclusion, Madam Mayor, that we have had action [Interruption.] I mean Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not aware that you are standing for the post; I am sure you are not.
	In London, we have the example of real leadership and action by Ken Livingstone. That should continue. We do not need the hot air, wind-baggery and aspirations of the hon. Member for Henley, who has finally discovered that London exists as a city. In the end, Londoners will determine which way to go, especially in terms of policing.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.

David Ruffley: I have a lot of regard for the Minister, but he plumbed new depths with his rather churlish approach to some of the sensible comments made by Conservative Members, particularly the public statements from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), who has contributed hugely to the debate on how to improve London policing.
	I start by paying tribute to the work of all police officers in Londonto the City of London force, which I have had the privilege of visiting; the British Transport police; and, of course, the Met. The Metropolitan police is unique in this country. It receives a quarter of the national police budget and contains approximately a fifth of all sworn officers. It works hardday in, day outto protect 7.4 million citizens. It spearheads the national effort to tackle serious crime and terrorism. However, the rather rosy picture that the Minister paints of crime levels in London needs to be tackled.
	Of course the police work hard, but no one who has canvassed in this mayoral election or talked to Londoners in a normal, average week thinks that the average Londoner is happy with crime levels in London. They think more can be done. They believe that London can be made safer.

Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.

David Ruffley: In a moment.
	The current Mayor wants London to be the safest city in the world, but after eight years of the Labour mayoralty London is not even the safest city in the United Kingdom. According to the latest Home Office figuresup to 2006-07in London there were 124 recorded crimes per 1,000 of population, which is a quarter higher than the 100 per 1,000 of population nationally. In London, there were 24 recorded instances of violence against the person per 1,000 of population. That is 20 per cent. higher than the 19 per 1,000 of population across England and Wales. In London, there were 32 recorded instances of theft, excluding car theft, per 1,000 of population. That is higher than the 22 per 1,000 of population across the rest of the UK.
	Even the Home Secretary herself

Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Ruffley: In a moment.
	Even the Home Secretary herself has said that either in Hackney or in south Kensingtonpick a borough, it does not matter whichshe is not comfortable walking on her own at night.

Andrew Love: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and commend him for giving selective figures. Does he accept that, overall, the crime figures over the past five years show a 19 per cent. reduction? Will he add to his list and congratulate the Mayor of London on providing the back-up that allowed those figures to be achieved?

David Ruffley: I will offer no such congratulation to the Mayor of London, whose record I will get on to in a moment, and no, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's characterisation of such large falls in crime. Those are recorded figures from the Home Office itself, and they stand the test of time. They show what is happening to recorded crimesthey are going up. Violent crime is up in London. Gun crime is up in London. Knife crime is up in London. Something needs to be done about that.
	The simple fact is that London's citizens do not feel as safe as they would like.

Tony McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Ruffley: I will give way to the Minister in a moment.
	On 11 March 2008, the current Mayor of London told the Home Affairs Committee:
	crime continued to rise until 2003; since then it has fallen by 21 per cent..
	Let me put that in its historical context. According to the Home Office figures, which are there for all to seeI say that for the benefit of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love)there were just under 130,000 recorded offences of violence against the person in London in 1998-99. Guess what the figure was in 2006-07: it was 182,000. That is an increase of 40 per cent., according to Home Office figures. In 1998-99 there were 26,000 robberies in London. Guess how many there were in 2006-07: well over 45,000. That is an increase of over 74 per cent.

Tony McNulty: rose

David Ruffley: I shall be happy to listen to the Minister if he can answer my questions.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman simply cannot do this. He must quote the figures accurately. The 182,000 offences of violence against the person in 2006-07 has fallen by 3 per cent. to 173,997, and if offences of harassment are excludedI am sure that Members know what harassment isthe figure is 13 per cent.
	Members must not mislead the House, inadvertently or otherwise. It is not right to say that violent crime is going up when the correct figures tell their own story: that violent crime has fallen significantly. That is not a debating point but a matter of absolute fact, and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.

David Ruffley: I invite anyone who reads  Hansard tomorrow to read what I have said, and then to view the Home Office website and compare the record for 1998-99 with that for 2006-07. Then we shall see who is right.

Boris Johnson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the huge majority of Londoners would listen with more interest to the words of the Labour hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who said only this month that scarcely a child or teenager in her constituency had not been mugged? Is not that testimony far more powerful than the fictitious statistics of that Minister?

David Ruffley: I would rather take my hon. Friend's powerful point than the fiddled and dodgy numbers and spin put out by

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a bit of a heated debate going on in the Chamber, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will think very carefully about the words that he uses.

David Ruffley: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me simply say that the spin-addicted Minister may decide to revisit his comments when he reads  Hansard tomorrow.
	Let us consider another statistic. In 2007, 27 teenagers were murdered in London, nearly all of them victims of knife or gun crime perpetrated by other youths. That lends force to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley.
	Those rises in crimewhich, I hasten to add, are not to be laid at the door of the police; I shall explain why in a momentshould be seen in the context of police funding. They have occurred as spending on the Met has gone up, with a budget increase of more than 30 per cent. That increase is of course welcome, but the fact remains that Londoners are paying increasing amounts through higher police precepts, and I think that many of them will wonder why crime is not falling in proportion to the amount of extra money that they are contributing.

Joan Ryan: The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) represents one of the safest constituencies in the country, but he has opposed measures to fight gun crime and antisocial behaviour here in London. He opposed the automatic five-year sentence for carrying a gun illegally. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) will explain that to us in the context of tackling violent crime in London.

David Ruffley: The right hon. Lady's rather thin and, frankly, pathetic intervention shows how scared Labour Members are of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley.

Justine Greening: The net police precept in my constituency has quadrupled over the past 10 years, but we have not seen a quadrupling of the number of police officers. Over the past seven years, Wandsworth residents have paid 66 million more for fewer warranted officers who can arrest people on their streets.

David Ruffley: That statistic from Putney speaks volumes.

Harry Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Ruffley: I wish to make some progress first.
	If the Minister will not accept statistics in black and white, surely there is one thing on which we can agree: the need for greater police visibility in London. Surely there is common ground on that. There is, however, a huge difference between our prescriptions and those of the Labour Government.
	I am sure we can agree that if there are more police on the beat, they deter more crime and more arrests are made. After 11 September 2001, the police redeployed 1,500 officers from outer London to the city centre. At the time, Ian Blair described the impact of that redeployment on crime levels. He said:
	On 13 September, street crime began to rise in the outer boroughs and go down in the centre. By Christmas, the rise in street crime everywhere except central Westminster had become almost vertical, with nearly 7,000 robberies and snatch thefts in January,
	which, he said, represented an increase of more than 50 per cent.
	After the July bombings, the redeployment of officers on the streetsfor which my hon. Friend the Member for Henley has argued so powerfully in the past few weeks, and will argue powerfully for in future weekshad a similar effect. A study in the aftermath of 7 July found that, in the six months following the incident, increased police deployment in six key London boroughs had led to a significant fall in crime. That is why London Conservatives, and Conservatives nationally, are serious about cutting the bureaucracy that is heaped on our hard-working police officers. It is not acceptable that, in London, the amount of time spent on patrol decreased from 13.7 per cent. in 2003-04 to 12.8 per cent. in 2006-07.

Stephen Pound: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Ruffley: I will in a minute.
	Not even the men and women in the Police Federation believe the Minister when he says that he has cutor his Government have cutthe number of forms by 9,000. The Conservatives have consistently asked the Minister to publish the 9,000 red-tape forms that they say they have cut, and he will not do it. Will he do it today?

Tony McNulty: indicated dissent.

David Ruffley: Unless the Government can show what they have done to cut red tape in the last 10 years, they will have no claim to be anti-bureaucracy and no claim to be putting more police officers back on the street.

Greg Hands: May I return my hon. Friend for a moment to the subject of high-visibility policing? I know that earlier this month he visited the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and had a look at the 24/7 policing there, which I think is a fantastic achievement. It is the only borough in London where safer neighbourhood teams patrol 24 hours a day, seven days a weekin two wards, Shepherd's Bush Green and Fulham Broadway. Will my hon. Friend share with us his impressions of what I consider to be a fantastic initiative?

David Ruffley: I was impressed by it. It is not cheap, and the Conservative council should be commended for saying that there should be more spending. I know that the Minister is allegedly sceptical. We must wait for the evaluation, but what I saw in Hammersmith and Fulham confirmed for me the key point that having more police on the beat more often reduces crime and, crucially, reassures Londonerscertainly in Shepherd's Bush, which I know well for various reasons.

Stephen Pound: rose

David Ruffley: I am now happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Stephen Pound: I am extremely grateful. The hon. Gentleman is characteristically generous.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned bureaucracy and red tape. His party, rightly in my opinion, introduced the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which at the time of its introduction was attacked on precisely the grounds to which he has referred today. Does he propose to repeal PACE?

David Ruffley: Absolutely not. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act was a Conservative piece of criminal justice legislation which, as everyone agreesthe Minister and I have debated thisis one of the jewels in the crown. In terms of red tape, let us consider the Auld review, which resulted in statutory charging, and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. They are the measures that are causing more red tape to be heaped on the police, not PACE, and no Conservative Member has ever suggested otherwise.

David Burrowes: In the context of a police presence in our communities, does my hon. Friend recognise the crucial role of local police stations? There is concern about that in my community, not least in Southgate, where the police station is threatened with closure by a centralised asset-management strategy. Surely we should take more account of local communities, and follow the lead of our hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), who wishes to keep police stations such as Southgate open.

David Ruffley: In the past 10 years, under this Government, there have been net falls across the country, including London. I think that many Londoners will be reassured if they see more police stations or police outposts than there are now, and I look forward to the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Henley is Mayor of London and can drive that policy forward.
	Bureaucracy results in about one hour in five of a patrol officer's time being spent on the street as distinct from other important work. We need to address that low figure and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley has given some practical ways of doing so. I do not accept some of the sniping from Labour Members; of course my hon. Friend is right to say that press officer and advertising spend for Transport for London can be reduced in order to increase the number of PCSOs. He is right to say that more British Transport Police officers at railway stations can be funded by looking at the Metropolitan Police Service overhead budget for spin doctors and advertising. Who could possibly disagree with that kind of common-sense Conservatism?
	More police can be put back on the beat, but not by general imprecations that it might be nice to have less red tape. We are arguing purposefullymy hon. Friend is doing so in Londonfor the abolition of the stop and account form and to make the stop and search form recordable in digitised form.

Tony McNulty: It is being done.

David Ruffley: That has not been done; there is no sense in which the stop and search form is a paperless transaction. If the Minister thinks that it is, he should get out more. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley is putting forward that policy as a practical way to cut red tape and to get more police back on the beat in London.
	It is also fair to say something about PCSOs, for whom we see a strong role. It is regrettable hat the Government ditched their 2005 goal to recruit 6,389 new PCSOs in London. The figure will be about 5,562, lower than what the Government promisedanother broken Labour promise.
	Another really important point for all Londoners listening to this debate is that Sir Ronnie Flanagan, in his independent review of policing, said something with great applicability to London:
	maintaining police numbers at their current level is not sustainable over the course of the next three years... we would not be making the most effective use of the resources dedicated to the police if police officer numbers were sustained at their current level.
	Do the Minister and his London colleagues agree with that? Does the Minister think police officer numbers in London are unsustainable in London over the next three years? Let us hear about that. If we want visible policing on the streets of London, we need to know the Government's intentions on police strength: more, fewer or about the same? Flanagan says the numbers have to be cut; what does the Minister think?

Richard Ottaway: In London, which has huge diversity, only 20 per cent. of police officers are female and only 8 per cent. are of black and minority ethnic origin. Should not that be addressed? I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley will do so.

David Ruffley: It is an important point on which there is cross-party agreement. The chief constable of Cheshire, Peter Fahey, is the ACPO lead on the issue and I have had many fruitful discussions on this. There is cross-party understanding that BME recruitment to the Met has gone up under Sir Ian Blair's leadership, for which he should be given credita high proportion of PCSOs are from BME backgroundsbut that that is not reflected in the ranks of constables or sergeants. More needs to be done and I know that the liberal-minded, socially concerned leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley when he becomes London Mayor will be addressing that. He is an inclusive, modernising and very much forward-looking Conservative.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not here to discuss individual candidates' manifestos, but policing in London.

David Ruffley: I defer to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but after listening to the Labour attacks on my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, I thought that that was exactly what was going on.
	The 101 non-emergency number is something on which I thought there was cross-party consensus. The London Labour manifesto said that it would be rolled out across the whole of London. Instead, because of budget cuts, the Met itself is funding a small roll-out in three London boroughs. That is not what citizens were promised by the Labour Government; many want a non-emergency number to report things such as antisocial behaviour. What are the Government doing about that broken promise as well as all the others?

Andrew Dismore: This is a very opportune time to have this debate, with the Metropolitan police at its highest ever strength, with crime falling fastby 19 per cent. over the last five yearsand with Londoners soon to face a choice between a Mayor who has built up the Met and a Conservative party that has consistently voted for cuts in its budget; between a candidate who has cut crime and has good community relations, and a candidate with no new ideas who has alienated the minorities in our city.
	We now have 10,000 more police and PCSOs than there were in 2000, with dedicated safer neighbourhood teams in every ward. This includes 850 extra officers keeping the bus network safe and 700 British transport policeup by 300 since 2000keeping the underground and the Docklands light railway safe. Police numbers are now at their highest level ever, at over 35,000, including 31,304 police officers and 4,178 PCSOs. This is the result of the investment by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, and the Government, after a decade in which numbers were in continual decline under the previous Government. The Mayor's budget for next yearassuming he is re-elected, which I am sure he will bewill provide for an extra 1,000 police officers over the next 12 months in the new financial year.
	Yet we have seen London Conservatives consistently opposing more funding for the police. The Tories on the London Assembly voted against Mr. Livingstone's budgets that pay for extra police and safer neighbourhood teams in every ward. Tory GLA Member Richard Barnes has openly said of the police in London that
	I don't think so much money should be spent on them.
	At the mayoral hustings in September 2007, the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) announced major cuts to London's police budget, saying:
	We have got to be absolutely clear where the scope for real economies is and the real big ticket for spending is the Metropolitan police and Transport for London. That's where the real savings, believe me, are to be found.
	That was reported in the  Evening Standard on 10 September 2007. I now understand that he is targeting other aspects of the Metropolitan police budget

Boris Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman will get his chance later. He is aiming to cut the Met's reserve budget for major incidents such as a terrorist attack. His pledge, as we heard earlier, for 440 extra PCSOs is based on numbers that simply do not add up, and on out-of-date budgets.
	People are also interested in what is happening in their own boroughs. In my borough of Barnet, we now have 532 police officers and 147 PCSOs, which we never used to have. Not only that, but great progress has been made on sickness absence, for example. We now have one of the best records in the Met, which means that we see much more of our police officers than used to be the case.
	The real success story is that of the safer neighbourhood teams. We have large wards in Barnet, so our teams are six PCSOs, two constables and a sergeant. They are now working from 8am to midnight on rotas and shifts set by the sergeant in accordance with local demand.

Stephen Pound: This morning, I was out with the Perivale safer neighbourhoods team on what we call a partnership day. Virtually everybody has talked about feet on the street and bobbies on the beat in the same way as they talk about motherhood and apple pie, but can my hon. Friend ever remember, while we have been denizens of this city, a time when there have been so many police officers and support officers on the street? Why does he think that increase has happened?

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It has happened because the Mayor of London, working with the Labour Government, has worked hardin the teeth of Tory Oppositionto make sure that the money is available to bring in the project for safer neighbourhood teams in advance of the national roll-out. The Mayor and the Government are to be commended on that.
	It is also important to recognise how approachable safer neighbourhood teams are. Not only are their mobile phone numbers and e-mail addresses well publicised, the names of the officers are well known locally. I personally would like to pay tribute to Sergeants Lachlan, Mitham, Peyton, French, Simpson, Mather and Reid, who have done a great job in making sure that they are well known in their wards and approachable by local communities. They provide reassurance and enforcement against antisocial behaviour. What is more, working on safer neighbourhood teams has proved very popular with officers as well. For once, there is real stability in police and PCSO staffing out on the streets. They operate from local bases in local wards. Far more can be provided through such local bases than via the old police stations, which are often further afield.
	In my constituency, the safer neighbourhood teams have worked effectively on youth diversion projects. I particularly commend the Edgware SNT for its work in that respect. It is a pity that Conservative Barnet council has not supported its efforts sufficiently, for example in trying to bring Pavilion Way fieldsnear where I liveback into use, after it had lain derelict for years under the Conservatives. Police constables have worked hard to bring those fields back into action, but all the council wants to do is flog them off so that property speculators can build houses on them.
	Our SNTs have been effective in combating mini-motos and dealing with dangerous dogs, in spite of lack of effort by the Conservative council, which will not bring in dog control zones. The hon. Member for Henley has left the Chamber, which shows that he is no longer interested in policing London, but it is my understanding that he opposed what he called the new anti-yobbo programme, which included powers to deal with dangerous dogs. I can tell him that dangerous dogs are a major issue in my constituency, featuring on the front page of the local newspapersyet he talks about legislative coercion.

Andrew Love: I thank my hon. Friend for giving wayand I also regret that the hon. Member for Henley has left the Chamber.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not make references to whether Members are in or out of the Chamber.

Andrew Love: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition have not prioritised the issue of antisocial behaviour, and that it remains the case that only Labour in London, and the Government, are doing anything to deal with the real problems on our estates across the capital?

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Perhaps that is because the people whom we represent tend to be more on the receiving end of antisocial behavioursuch as noise nuisance, dangerous dogs and children running wild. When I hear that the hon. Member for Henley does not even think that CCTV is importanthe sees it as an erosion of libertyI wonder how he has the gall to say he wants to be Mayor of London, as so many of our streets could benefit from having CCTV cameras, and that is a popular demand that we hear all the time from our constituents.

Clive Efford: On the subject of CCTV cameras, when we had a problem with vandalism on the busessomething the hon. Member for Henley has made a great deal ofone of the things the bus drivers demanded and got from the Mayor of London was CCTV on the buses. I dare say if the hon. Gentleman does not consider CCTV cameras important, he does not consider them important for dealing with antisocial behaviour on buses either.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The fact remains that there is now CCTV on every bus in London. That is a major improvement not only in terms of safety on the buses, but for public transport more widely.

Greg Hands: May I correct something the hon. Gentleman said? I have a copy of the transport manifesto of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). It clearly states:
	Boris will fund a trial of live CCTV on the 20 most dangerous routes
	and:
	We will cut the Transport for London advertising budget by 16.5 million to pay for the PCSOs and the CCTV trial.
	So my hon. Friend is definitely committed to having CCTV.

Andrew Dismore: As was said earlier, that cannot be paid for in the way that the hon. Member for Henley proposes. However, the fact remains that he has called CCTV an erosion of liberty. How he squares his circle is for him to justify. He is not here to answer that particular point for himself. That is a pity, because on the one hand he says it is an erosion of liberty, but on the other he says he wants to have more CCTV. That is another example of Tory flip-flopping from day to day.
	Against the background of increased priority for, and investment in, the police, there has been a significant fall in crime for the fifth year in a row. It is now at the lowest level since 1999. We can argue about statistics, but those pre-2002 are not comparable. There has been a 19 per cent. fall in murders. Gun crime is down 22 per cent., robbery down 12 per cent., rape down 25 per cent., grievous bodily harm down 10 per cent., domestic violence down 15 per cent. and knife crime down by 18 per cent. since its peak in 2004.

David Ruffley: I am listening with interest. Can the hon. Gentleman give the source of those statistics? Are they recorded, are they from the British crime survey, and which areas do they cover?

Andrew Dismore: The statistics are from the Metropolitan Police Service performance information bureau. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not question whether the police have collated them accurately.
	I can also give the figures for my borough, which are BCS statistics; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not want to challenge them, either. I pay tribute again to Chief Superintendent Kavanagh, my borough commander, who has proved to be an inspirational leader. He is very accessible and popular in our community. In the current year there has been an 8 per cent. fall in crime, on top of 16 per cent. in the whole of last year24 per cent. in total in less than two years. Mugging is down 5.9 per cent.

Justine Greening: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Dismore: Vehicle crime is down 16.8 per cent.

Justine Greening: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is very clear that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give way at present.

Andrew Dismore: Violent crime is down by 4 per cent. We have had a particular problem with burglary, especially violent burglary, with a couple of gangs who have been targeting Jewish families. That is a very serious matter, but it appears that those gangs have now been caught and their members are subject to trial, so I will not say anything further about it.
	We have also seen significant success in dealing with alcohol-fuelled crime over the Christmas period. The number of offences fell from 158 in 2006 to only 90 in 2007, and there has been a fall in actual bodily harm of 61 per cent. over two years. That is a great tribute to the style of policing we now have in Barnet.
	We have heard a lot about transport today, and significant progress has also been made in that respect. Crime on London's buses is now 11 per cent. lower than a year ago. The latest figuresfor the first six months of 2007-08show a significant fall in criminal damage, robbery and theft offences on the capital's buses, despite a significant increase in passenger numbers. In outer London, I am pleased to say, we now have the 21 safer transport teams, which have proved a great success. We have such a team in Barnet. Its mobile telephone numbers and e-mail are available. We have 18 PCSOs, two police constables and two sergeants patrolling the north-south routes and the transport hubs. They have proved very effective in catching offenders, and in providing safety and reassurance, and useful intelligence. When they were first introduced, the London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden, Brian Coleman, described them as a gimmick. My constituents certainly do not regard them as a gimmick. They want them to be made more effective and their numbers expanded.

David Ruffley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With reference to Erskine May, is it in order for a Member to read a speech?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, but it is not uncommon for Members to refer to notes.

Andrew Dismore: I was not reading a speech; I was reading out the numbers. The hon. Gentleman may not appreciate them, so I will give them to him again, if he likes. Our safer transport team has 18 PCSOs, two sergeants and two constables, and has proved very popular, despite being described as a gimmick by the Conservative London Assembly Member for our borough.

David Burrowes: What would the hon. Gentleman's constituents say if he were to put a question in one of his numerous surveys to them asking, Would you rather 16.5 million of the Transport for London advertising budget be spent on promoting ourselves, or on more PCSOs and CCTV?

Andrew Dismore: I suspect people would not like money to be spent on public relations. That is inevitable; that will always be a lower priority. However, as we explored earlier, the budget that the hon. Gentleman mentions is simply not available for such expenditure. I do not think he will get anywhere by pursuing that idea.
	Reference has been made to the problems of gun and knife crime. There has been significant progress, with Operation Kartel in February this year leading to 780 arrests, and a 50 per cent. reduction in gun-enabled crime and a 26 per cent. reduction in knife-enabled crime across the 11 London boroughs. Operation Blunt's knife amnesty earlier in the year led to more than 1,000 knives being handed in, and Operation Trident solved 12 murders in 2004-05.
	It is interesting that when the hon. Member for Henley says that tough gun laws must be enforced, and talks about mandatory five-year sentencing introduced to deter gun crime and to punish offenders and make people safer, he fails to add that he voted against those automatic five-year sentences for people caught illegally carrying guns on Third Reading of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which brought in those powers. It is remiss of him to say that he supports something when he voted against it in the House.
	It is important for us to reflect on the problem of teenage murders, which is a serious one in London, although we must recognise that the vast majority of young Londoners are not involved in criminality. The 26 murders last year were 26 too many. We must look far beyond a simple law-and-order solution, and examine the social and educational factors involved. Importantly, the Mayor has made 79 million available over the next two years through the London youth offer, to give young people more opportunities to try to get out of crime.
	I have already spoken for some time, but I should mention people trafficking. I have taken a particular interest in that subject through my work as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I commend the Mayor on the work that he has been doing, with and on behalf of trafficking victims, to provide for them.
	We face significant policing challenges over the next few years, not least the challenge of policing the Olympics, for which there is a massive security budget of 1.2 billion, and the ongoing challenge of terrorism. When Londoners make their choice in a few weeks' time, they would be well advised to vote for a man who has an excellent track record of cutting crime, looking after public safety and increasing the police service in London to record levels.

Tom Brake: I echo the tributes paid to the police for the dangerous job that they do. I also welcome the fact that a statement was made earlier. Although we cannot talk now about the concerns raised in Surrey, it is worth pointing outhon. Members who have seen the press reports will know thisthat if Surrey's force has to cut 4 million from its budget, it will drop a big operation to prevent criminals moving in and out of the county, which would undoubtedly have an impact on London.
	Policing in London is, of course, a priority, and there are a number of reasons for that. First, London is a prime terrorist target and the police in London need to be adequately resourced to address that issue. In passing, I should question the effectiveness of some of the measures that are being taken. Some hon. Members may have seen posters that state:
	Thousands of people take photos every day. What if one of them seems odd?.
	I am willing to be convinced that the campaign is effective, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how effective it has been. I know that it is of concern to at least 91 Members of Parliament, who have signed an early-day motion expressing concern that people are being accosted while innocently taking photographs and asked precisely what they are doing. I would like to be convinced that the campaign will be effective and will not simply add to a climate of fear.
	London is the world's financial centre, a fact which generates specific crime issues, particularly those associated with e-crime. I hope that the Government will update us about the cross-departmental committee that is to be set up to examine e-crime.
	Major events in London must be policed; for example, President Sarkozy's visit yesterday would have used a lot of police resources. London has high deprivation, especially in the inner-city areas, which leads to additional or above-average levels of crime.
	For all those reasons, policing in London is a priority. For many years, law and order has been the greatest concern for Londoners. This debate has confirmed that such issues will be the focus of much of the mayoral campaign, so it is worth spending a little of the little time available contrasting the offerings of the various mayoral candidates.
	The Liberal Democrat candidate, Brian Paddick, has 30 years' experience at the sharp end of policing in London. His record spans the Brixton riots and tackling hard drugs in Lambeth. He plans to chair the Metropolitan Police Authority and bring that experience to bear on it. He has pledged to introduce a guard on trams after 9 pm and on the 10 worst bus routes, and to reduce crime by 5 per cent. every year during his first term. Unlike the present Mayor, who promised to reduce crime by 50 per cent. but has so far achieved only an 18.5 per cent. reduction, Brian Paddick will resign if he does not deliver on his pledge at the end of his first term.
	The Mayor has broken his promise made in 2004 to reduce crime by 50 per cent., and he appears to have thrown in the towel. Many hon. Members will be aware of his comments on gun and knife crime during the London Talking debate:
	No Mayor, no commissioner of police, can stop young people killing each other if they haven't been given a moral code.
	The Mayor, who is responsible for policing and who claims credit for successes in London, clearly has a responsibility and the ability to do something about young people killing each other in Londonif he does not, he should resign and make way for someone who does.
	The Mayor has pledged to deliver 1,000 new officers, and Labour Members have referred to that. It is worth examining the pledge on the 1,000 new officers whom he will apparently provide, because in fact he will not provide them: the Home Office will provide the vast majority through its funding or through the boroughs. The Mayor's role will be very limited. We know that, within that figure, he was seeking 300 designated security posts, but only 97 will be delivered. He was also seeking 300 counter-terrorism officers, and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm whether they will be delivered. There are already significant gaps in the Mayor's promised 1,000 new officers.

Simon Hughes: There is a great inconsistency in the promises and delivery of the Mayor and the current Administration. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the other frustrations felt not only by citizens but by the police is that whereas the Labour Government and the Labour Mayor keep claiming that crime is generally going down, people who live in a borough that is run by a non-Labour council receive Labour leaflets that perpetually say that the local council is responsible for crime, as though there were no possibility of people going out safely on the streets? There appears to be absolute hypocrisy in Labour, which wants the national message to be that crime is reducing but locally it appears to blame local councilsso long as they are not Labour onesfor increasing it.

Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, which highlights the fact that what is often said is not what is delivered in practice.
	I must briefly discuss the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), who gives very entertaining evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs but who seems to have an obsession or fixation with buses; the scrapping of bendy buses seems to be the solution to all London's problems. Whether we are talking about transport policy, tackling antisocial behaviour, it all requires

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Andrew Slaughter: Before I make a few brief remarks, may I offer my congratulations to my borough commander, Ali Dizaei, on his much-deserved recent promotion to assistant commissioner? His fame goes beyond his boroughI refer to his previous service in the London borough of Hounslow. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) would join me in those congratulations. I am pleased to say that Ali Dizaei will probably continue in a role across west London; his brief service so far has been excellent in that capacity. He is an example of one of the many excellent police officers at all levels serving the community across London.
	This debate is about the Mayor and policing in London as a whole. Without repeating what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said, I merely wish to say that the Mayor's record on policing is exemplary. The number of police is at an all-time record level. The rather churlish comments of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) notwithstanding, 1,000 additional officers have been promised.

Stephen Pound: Tribute has been paid to the borough commander in Hammersmith and Fulham by my hon. Friend, who also represents part of the great and noble borough of Ealing. I am sure that he will therefore wish to associate himself with the comments that many of us have made about the excellent qualities of Borough Commander Sultan Taylor of Ealing.

Andrew Slaughter: I certainly doit is another excellent appointment. My only problem with the borough commanders that we have had in west London is that they are so good that they keep getting poached and promoted. I hope that I have not set off a whole sequence of 32 borough commanders being praised, because then we will have no time for anything else.
	Over the past five yearsConservative Front Benchers should take notice of thiscrime in London has fallen by 20 per cent. It is all very well for the Conservative spokesman to say to his researchers, as he doubtless did, Please go away and find me some statistics, however obscure, to try to suggest that that is not the case. In almost every area of serious crimewhether it is murder, gun crime, robbery, rape or grievous bodily harmreductions in crime have been in double figures. I am glad that I am not still at the criminal Bar, because I fear that I would find it difficult to earn a living; in fact, I always did, owing to the Government's appalling legal aid rates.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one area of concern, which is borne out by the statistics, is what is happening with young people committing homicides and being murdered?

Andrew Slaughter: I entirely agree that that is a serious problem. The death of Kodyo Yenga in Hammersmith and Fulham only a year ago was one of a number of tragic events at that time but we must keep this in perspective, as such events are still rare. One death, particularly of a young person, is a serious matter. However, I feel that the issue has been sensationalisednot by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and his party, but certainly by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) who has not graced the Chamber with his presence during this debate. That is a disgrace as he seeks [ Interruption. ] He was present for about 10 minutes. No doubt he has another more important

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that I will not allow comments to be made about who is or is not in the Chamber.

Andrew Slaughter: I accept that. Of course, as he is an Oxfordshire MP, perhaps he should not have been present at all for a debate on London policing.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of my ruling.

Clive Efford: When the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) talked about crime figures, he took 1998 as his starting point. The point that the Mayor would make, which the statistics bear out, is that crime rates are in line with police numbers. As police numbers have grown and the Government and the Mayor have invested in extra police, crime has come down. The hon. Gentleman should remember that.

Andrew Slaughter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he wants to speak and I shall therefore say what I need to with greater speed.
	The Mayor of London has transformed policing, most usefully by introducing neighbourhood policingan initiative that has been followed throughout the country. That subject is a particular interest of mine, and I introduced a ten-minute Bill on it about two years ago. There was resistance among the police to neighbourhood policing, which was initially described as reassurance policing, but I always believed, as did the Mayor, that it would have an effect in cutting crime, and it has. I also believed that it would assist intelligence-led policing. The safer neighbourhood teams throughout the boroughs

Stephen Pound: We have seen failures, as we certainly did in the Brixton command not too recently. Does my hon. Friend agree that when the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) says that the Liberal candidate for Mayor would resign if crime did not fall, that is roughly analogous to my saying that I would control myself if Carla Bruni came knocking at my bedroom door? Neither scenario is likely to occur.  [ Laughter. ]

Andrew Slaughter: I have an image in my head that I wish would go away.

Stephen Pound: So do I!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Please may we have some order in the Chamber and a debate on policing in London?

Andrew Slaughter: I agree that a little more control is needed on all sides, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	When Hammersmith and Fulham, which is part of my local authority, was Labour-run, it was the first authority to decide to put neighbourhood officers into all wards. Before that programme could be completed, the Mayor accelerated the programme of neighbourhood policing and put the six-member teams into all wards in London in record time. The Tories opposed that. They try to weasel out of it now, but they opposed additional policing in every budget proposed in the GLA. They are now trying to climb on the bandwagon.
	It is a similar story in Hammersmith and Fulham. The new Tory council says that crime is its No. 1 priority, whereas its priority is actually making 36 million in cuts. It will invest 750,000 a year in policing and make cuts worth 36 million in services. That gives a good idea of the priorities of Conservative councils. Where it has put in that extra policing, it calls it 24/7 policing. The police find that very offensive, because when we talk to them they say that they thought that they worked 24 hours in any event, but that the Conservatives in Hammersmith say that they did not.
	That extra policing has been introduced in only two wards, displacing crime into other wards. The  Evening Standardthe Boris Johnson house magazine, so I hope Conservative Members will trust itsaid that of the 20 areas with the most residential burglaries, two are in Hammersmith and Fulham, in wards that neighbour those where enhanced policing has been introduced. The Labour opposition's policy, which it will implement when it returns to power in 2010, is to introduce police task squads across all wards with high crime. That proposal, which chimes with the Mayor's policies, is the way we need to go.
	I mentioned my local Tory authority as an example of how a Tory Mayor would behave. Nothing can be said about what the hon. Member for Henley has done, because until his selection as candidate a few weeks ago he showed no interest whatsoever in London or policing in London other than opposing measures such as the five-year compulsory sentence for carrying a gun, which was a measure to reduce crime, particularly in London. His financial illiteracy

Clive Efford: Before the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) became the candidate for London Mayor, he mentioned London in the House only once.

Andrew Slaughter: His financial illiteracy extends not only to policing, as we have heard. The Conservative spokesman tried to wriggle out of this, but I was actually there

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I said earlier in the debate that the manifestos of individual candidates must not be given. I am trying to chair this debate as evenly and fairly as I can.

Andrew Slaughter: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Conservative Front-Bench spokesman specifically said that his party's candidate would introduce an extra 440 officers, paid for out of a fund that does not exist. I was there when the hon. Member for Henley explained that and talked about an increase in funding through public relationsa budget that simply does not exist. Like all the protestations made by that Oxfordshire Member, these are magical figures. His budget for additional spending for buses was said to be 8 million yet the true cost was 110 million.

Harry Cohen: You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker, to admonish my hon. Friend for referring to the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). May I bring him back to the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, and his achievement in bringing racist crime down by 55 per cent. since 2000? Is that not some achievement in the context of 7/7 and the danger of a backlash? Should not communities in London be aware of that and praise him for it?

Andrew Slaughter: I agree. Racist crime in London has fallen by 55 per cent. since 2000. I do not need to say much about that because, as Doreen Lawrence and others have said, the record of Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London in tackling racist and other hate crimes in London is exemplary. There could not be a starker comparison with the record of the hon. Member for Henley, who made offensive and racist comments of a kind that he now tries to pass off as a joke.  [ Interruption. ] Well, he did.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw those remarks.

Andrew Slaughter: I withdraw those remarks and replace them with the words that he actually used. He used the expressions piccaninny and watermelon smile.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman withdraw that remark and move on in his speech.

Andrew Slaughter: I did move on, but[Hon. Members: Withdraw.] I withdraw the comment that I made; I will let the words speak for themselves. The hon. Member for Henley tried to resile from those words and say that they were a joke. I think that when the people on London have a chance to vote on 1 May, they will treat him as a joke.

James Brokenshire: It is right that Conservative Members should record all the hard work of the policethe City force, the Metropolitan police and British Transport policein ensuring that they provide a level of safety and security. That does not mean that we should not examine the figures and highlight some of the points that hon. Members have made: that London has higher levels of crime than the rest of the UK and that since 2000, drug offences have doubled, robberies have increased by 12 per cent. and violent crime has risen by a fifth.
	That is why we need change and why the Mayor's record, whatever he may say about it, does not bear scrutiny. It is why so many people in my constituency and many others in London do not feel safe out on the streets. The polls that have been taken show that nearly half of Londoners do not feel safe in their community. That is a terrible record and shows what this Mayor has not done to ensure that people feel safe and secure in their communities, homes and streets, whether during the day or during the night. It is quite telling that the Home Secretary herself does not feel safe on the streets of London at night, except perhaps on one of her regular runs to the kebab shop with her security police in tow. Perhaps that is the latest initiative to make London's streets safer.
	There are serious issues to consider, particularly about crime that affects our young people. It would be remiss not to focus on the teenage murders that have taken place in the past year27 young lives lost on the streets of our capital. Sadly, there have been nine murders of young people already this year.

Mark Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that such tragic murders give rise to the perceptionthe Minister may be correct that it is a perception rather than a realitythat crime is out of control? That is what happens when we see young, 15 or 16-year-old boys with guns and knives killing each other in the streets or homes of London. Does he agree that we ought to be doing a lot more about that, rather than just bandying around statistics? We should at least try to understand why the public at large have such grave concerns.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. One of the most disturbing trends that we have seen in recent years in violent crime and gun crime is that both the victims and the perpetrators are getting younger. The trend analysis from the Metropolitan police's Trident unit, which investigates crime among London's black communities, shows a clear drop in the ages of victims. In 2003, 16 per cent. of victims were under the age of 20; by 2006 that proportion had nearly doubled to 31 per cent. In evidence to the recent Select Committee on Home Affairs inquiry on young black people and the criminal justice system, Superintendent Leroy Logan, deputy borough commander in Hackney, told the Committee about
	growing incidents of gratuitous violence committed by younger age-groups...predominantly among themselves, with an increasing use of weapons in an attempt to gain respect through violence.

Bob Neill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the very real concern that he highlights has regrettably been exacerbated, particularly in some parts of outer London, by the amount of disorder that has occurred on buses following the introduction of free travel? Does he agree that it is regrettable that, rather than find a practical means of policing the issue, the Mayor has sought to denigrate the comments of head teachers in my constituency and others by calling them Victor Meldrews, when they are actually raising concerns to seek the protection of the young people for whom they have responsibility?

James Brokenshire: Crime among young people is a real problem. We need to be careful in how we phrase our comments, because young people are most likely to be the victims of crime, particularly crimes such as personal robbery. Yet the British crime survey does not even take account of crime against the under-16s. Even though the issue has been raised on many occasions, the Home Secretary is still sitting on her hands in relation to whether to take proper account of such issues.
	Bus crime is a real factor, certainly in my area of Havering, an outlying London borough, where we have a number of code reds and significant bus crime problems. The way in which the bus policy was introduced, without proper consideration of the sanctions that should be imposed against those who breach conditions and do not properly follow the rules attached to Oyster cards, was wholly irresponsible on the Mayor's part. It does not help that the commissioner of Transport for London has made ridiculous comments about and criticisms of the police when they have raised what I regard as legitimate concerns about the bus fleet in London. He has suggested that the money for the transport operational command unit should in some way be reduced or taken away. It is quite something that the debate has gone in such a direction.

Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the police and London Members across the party divide believe that a real difficulty is that many people will not come forward to give evidence, because they do not feel safe? One of the priorities for reducing crime, particularly very serious crime such as gun and knife crime and sexual offences, should be a better system of witness protection. Does he agree that that is a huge priority across the country in general and specifically in Greater London?

James Brokenshire: The whole issue of witness protection is extremely important, particularly in the case of gang crime. A real fear resides in a lot of our communities. The sad fact is that in too many of the communities across our capital city, the basic concept of civil societythe protection offered by law of the basic right to live free from intimidation, violence and fearhas been perverted by the activities of serious criminal gangs, acting with little or no conscience and with no sense of responsibility to anyone other than themselves. They prey on some of the most vulnerable young people in our community, and the active recruitment process that they go through is organised and serious. That is why it is so important to focus and bear down on gang crime, which has sadly taken the lives of so many young people in our capital city and continues to do so.

Harry Cohen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know that time is short. He is making some good and important points about gang crime. In that context, will he praise the current Mayor for his 79 million London youth offer, which is intended to get youth facilities in the most deprived areas? I do not know the Conservatives' positionwhether they would match that or skew money away from those deprived areas. Can he tell us something about that?

James Brokenshire: We need to focus on proper policing on the streets. That is why I support measures that cut bureaucracy and mean that police are on the streets, not sitting back in police stations dealing with forms. The police need to be visible, because that provides reassurance. As we have heard, only a fifth of the police's time is spent out in the communities, but that is where they need to be to ensure that our streets are safer.
	The Flanagan review said that police numbers were unsustainable. That poses a real question about the embedding of community policing. I believe in community policing, but I am concerned that the police do not have the time to spend out on the streets. I am worried about the future of policing in our communities and how we can make the streets of London safe.

Andrew Rosindell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the current arrangements, whereby police are based in wards instead of in proper communities, are a nonsense? In Havering, for example, it is ridiculous that areas such as Collier Row or Elm Park, which are divided between wards, have two different community police teams. The boundaries are based on electoral numbers rather than the needs of the local community.

James Brokenshire: We need to ensure that there is more local control over policing priorities, to ensure that they do not get distracted. For many people, crime and antisocial behaviour are real fears in our capital city. That is why the current policies are failing and the current Mayor is failing, and that is why we need a change.

Tony McNulty: I apologise for calling you Madam Mayor earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) said, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) made some serious and interesting points. When it comes to the detail of debates on policing in London, people can see that there is much more on the agenda that unites London Members than divides us. How did we get to where we are now? It is not good enough for hon. Members to run down London for electoral gain, as people have clearly done, or to run down our police in London. There is a fine line between traducing individual policies of the Metropolitan Police Service and traducing what the brave men and women in uniform do on London's streets every day. At least some Opposition Members crossed that line.
	Nor is it appropriate to run scare campaigns wrapped up in irrelevant statistics. There is enough to unite us when it comes to crime in London, because it is not going to disappear overnight on anybody's watch. Like all hon. Members, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the level of homicide among young people, especially gang-related homicide, but that should not lead us to presume that homicide levels in London are mushrooming. They are not; the figures are going the other way, and that should be recognised.
	Sustained investment in London policing is now reflected in the numbers, and officers are coming out on to the streets more and more, whatever the hon. Gentleman says about half-developed plans to cut bureaucracy and get rid of paperwork. Policing in London has seen success in falling crime rates, and I am not being complacent in saying that. Those are the facts, and indeed violent crime has fallen considerably, whatever he says. Shroud-waving and scare campaigns do him no credit.
	Transport safety is now significantly better, especially in outer London, my own borough included. Neighbourhood policing and safer neighbourhood teams have also been a huge success. By any measure, significant progress has been achieved throughout London, based on what the Mayor has done over the past eight years. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) that that work has increasingly had the indulgence and active support of councils of whatever hue, working with the safer neighbourhood teams and embracing neighbourhood policing in all its concepts.
	I can tell the hon. Member for Upminster

Andrew Rosindell: For Romford.

Tony McNulty: I apologise: the hon. Gentleman looks nothing like the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). I can tell him that it is well within the scope of borough commanders to determine whether ward teams should work together and ensure that areas are covered geographically rather than on a ward basis.
	All the success in policing and our future progress in that area is rooted in the success that the Mayor and Sir Ian Blair have achieved over the past eight years, and that should be commended. No matter where people want to go next, they should commend and recognise the great record of the Metropolitan police in London. London is very different from how it was 10 or 15 years agoand I would say that no matter which party ran the Greater London council or central Government back then. Our task as London MPs is to work with the Mayor to build on that, and to ensure that our investment is returned in style. We must work closely with those responsible for community safety, and with local government, to make sure that that is the case.
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proce edings, the motion lapsed, with out Question put, pursuant to Temporary Standing Order (Topical debates)

Mark Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In no way is this meant as a criticism of the Chair, but in the 90-minute debate that we just had, there were no time limits on Back-Benchers' contributions, although there were such limits for Front Benchers, and that meant that three quarters of the Members who wished to make contributions were unable to do so. Will you speak to Mr. Speaker to try to ensure that in future, when there is great demand to speak, as there is in topical debates on London, there are time limits on Back-Benchers' contributions?

Clive Efford: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I came to the Chamber for business questions two weeks ago and asked for today's debate, and the Leader of the House said that she would take up the issue, yet due to the shortage of time I was not able to contribute, so I feel slightly aggrieved, too. If time limits could be considered, I would support the idea.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the concerns of hon. Members who sought to take part in the debate and were not able to do so, but when a debate is only one and a half hours long, and obviously must include Front-Benchers' contributions, there is a problem. The points that both hon. Gentlemen made are now on record, and I am sure that they will be taken into consideration in future.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

John Butterfill: I beg to move,
	That Mr. Terry Rooney and Mr. David S. Borrow be discharged as Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund and Jim Dowd and Mr. Don Touhig be appointed as Managing Trustees in pursuance of section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.
	It gives me great pleasure to move the motion, and I am delighted to see that my colleague and fellow trustee, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), is present; he is one of the most assiduous trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. The motion proposes that the hon. Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) be discharged as managing trustees of the parliamentary pension fund and be replaced by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) and the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig).
	May I say how much I appreciated the work of the hon. Members for Bradford, North and for South Ribble? They have been excellent trustees and have given great service to the fund. It is not always appreciated how much time right hon. and hon. Members, often with extremely busy parliamentary lives, have to give up to serve as trustees. I should like to pay tribute to, and show my appreciation for, the service that they have given the fund. I hope that the two new trusteesexcellent choiceswho will be appointed if the motion is approved by the House will enjoy a similarly rewarding, but rather busy, service as trustees of the fund.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) has set out the background to the motion. Two trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fundmy hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney)have indicated that after four years, their time as trustees should now come to an end. I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking them for all the work that they have undertaken in that role, and indeed I thank all the trustees of the pension fund, who do that work on behalf of all of us.
	Following discussions, it is proposed that the two trustees be replaced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). Again, I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our gratitude to them for taking on that responsibility. I invite the House to support the motion.

Shailesh Vara: May I join the two previous speakers in thanking the hon. Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) for the sterling work that they have done on the parliamentary contributory pension fund? I extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) and the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) on agreeing to undertake the onerous responsibilities that they will experience as trustees of the fund.
	I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) for all the hard work that he does as chairman of the fund. I also thank his colleagues on the fund for all the work that they do. Last but not least, I take the opportunity to thank all the House staff who so ably support the fund and all that the trustees do.

Andrew Love: I add my endorsement to the motion. It would be churlish of me not to thank the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) for his kind comments. He serves as chairman of the trustees and has done so for many years, and has done a tremendous job in ensuring that Members' pension interests are looked after. I am sure that he will continue to do that into the future.
	I add my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), with whom I served. Both are prominent Back Benchers and active in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North is also Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee. They are both extremely busy and I know that that has been a consideration for them in their decision not to continue as trustees of the pension fund. I pay tribute to them for the tremendous job that they have done in the four years that they served as trustees.
	I welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). Both have served the House as Back Benchers, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn was a Minister and a Whip for some time, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West served in the Whips Office for a number of years. Both have great experience, which is much needed by trustees. I welcome them bothif the motion is carriedand look forward to working with them in the interests of the House and of Members.

Simon Hughes: This must be one of the less controversial debates in a month of some controversy.
	I join those around the Chamber who have thanked the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill). He does the job with the confidence of colleagues around the House and has done it with that confidence over a considerable time. We all owe him a debt of gratitude. Those of us who have been here for a long time increasingly appreciate the importance of the issue, and those of us who advance towards pensionable age are even more aware of its importance.
	I join also in the thanks to the outgoing colleagues and to the two colleagues who have expressed their willingness to take on that responsibility, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who looks after our interestsnot that the trustees are partisan or act in a party political way.
	Without wanting to open a Pandora's box, may I add one request that is linked to the work of the fund? This is an issue that has rightly and understandably attracted interest outside the House, particularly over recent years. Pension funds are of interest and the pension

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is simply about the replacing of two hon. Members with two other hon. Members and must not go wider than that.

Simon Hughes: I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that by the end of the sentence I will have assured you that I shall keep to your admonition.
	May I ask that one of the tasks of the new trustees and their colleagues on the board should be to produce a simple explanation of the fund as it now is, for the public as well as for Members, and that that should be made available through the outlets that the House has, on websites and so on? If the trustees are to have the confidence of the public as well as of Members, simple messages about the justice and propriety of the fund should be a priority for the trustees at all times.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Standards and Privileges

[Relevant document: The Sixth Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges on Employment of family members through the Staffing Allowance: Proposals for consultation, HC 383.]
	 Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House approves the Seventh Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 436) on Employment of family members through the Staffing Allowance; and endorses the changes proposed by the Committee in the purpose and form of the Register of Members' Interests. [Steve McCabe.]

George Young: Before I turn to my Committee's specific recommendations in its seventh report, it might be helpful if I briefly set out the background to our proposals for the disclosure of family members in the Register of Members' Interests.
	On 31 January, the House dealt with my Committee's fourth report, which revealed a specific case of misuse of the staffing allowance. That case attracted widespread criticism both inside and outside the House, and prompted callsnot least from the leaders of all the major political partiesfor greater transparency at an early date about the employment of relatives. At the same time, a number of Members sought to include details of such relatives in the Register of Members' Interests, but at the moment there is no category in the register into which such disclosures naturally fit.
	On 5 February, my Committee reflected on how best to make progress and we announced that we believed that by 1 April the House should have in place, within the existing framework, a system for the compulsory registration of Members who employ family members in connection with their duties as Members, and who remunerate them through the staffing allowance. We said that we would bring forward proposals. In reaching that conclusion, the Committee, to which the House has given oversight of the form and content of registers, was seeking to complement rather than pre-empt the wider inquiry of the Members Estimate Committee and to respond on behalf of the House as a whole to the immediate pressures, from both inside and outside the House, for greater transparency about to such employment. We took the view that the House should take the initiative and seek a House solution, rather than rely on a range of voluntary initiatives from the political parties.
	In developing our proposals, the Committee has kept in close touch with the Members Estimate Committee. That process has been assisted in no small measure by the presence of the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) on both the Members Estimate Committee and my Committee.
	On 28 February, my Committee published its sixth report, setting out proposals for consultation and our reasons for rejecting other options such as a purely voluntary scheme or a full list of Members' staff with family members distinguished. We proposed that, in each case, Members should disclose the name of the staff member, the relationship and the nature of the role in which they were employed, with a de minimis exemption when the annual payment involved did not exceed 1 per cent. of a Member's salary. The report also proposed a specific range of relationships to which the disclosure requirement would apply.
	We noted that the proposal to include in the register details of family members employed broke new ground in that, for the first time, Members would be required to include information that did not relate to a direct pecuniary interest. In recognition of that extension of its scope, and to emphasise the distinction, we also proposed that the register should in future be divided into two parts, with the first containing the existing categories of pecuniary interest, and the second containing the new category of relatives employed. The House is today being asked to approve that change in the scope and nature of the register. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for providing time for an early debate on our report.
	We also sought views on whether there should be a transitional period of voluntary registration. Despite the short period that could be allowed for consultation if we were to meet the 1 April deadline, we received 33 responses in all29 of them from parliamentary colleagues. I am grateful to all those who took the trouble to respond. Few consultees objected to the principle of what we proposed. A number wanted a delay in implementation, with our proposals being considered as an input to the broader Members Estimate Committee reviewnow due to report in time for a debate in Julyrather than as a separate exercise.
	My Committee gave careful consideration to those arguments. We concluded that it was both practicable and right to seek to make early progressas has subsequently been made in other areas, including the receipts threshold and petty cash, provisions on both of which take effect from 1 April. We have looked carefully at the specific points made in the consultation and amended our original proposals in a number of significant respects to accommodate many of those, while maintaining the original objectives. Thus, in our seventh report, we confirmed our original proposals on the information to be disclosed and on the de minimis limit. We have, however, simplified the provisions on the range of relationships covered regarding any employee where the Member knows, or might reasonably be expected to know, of any relationship past or present, by marriage or partnership equivalent to marriage, or by blood. We have also modified the proposed heading for the new register category so that it simply reflects the nature of the information disclosed.
	We have confirmed our proposal for the new requirements to come into effect on 1 April, at the start of the new allowance year, with their becoming compulsory from 1 August. That lead-in period, during which registration will be voluntary, has a number of benefits. It enables those seeking an early opportunity to put on the public record details of relatives whom they employ to do so within a common framework established by the House. Again, I declare my interest in that I employ a member of my family full-time in the House of Commons. It also provides those who may want to do so with an opportunity to review their contractual obligations in an orderly way, and it provides us with an opportunity to review the arrangements if necessary, before they become compulsory, in the light of the proposals that may emerge from the broad MEC review, and of our own experience of operating the scheme in voluntary mode. If the motion is passed, the registrar will contact hon. Members next week, setting out the action that they can take.
	Before I conclude, I should like to make a couple of more general points. Essentially, faced with the situation following our fourth report, there were three possible options concerning the employment of family members. One was to do nothing, the second was to ban the practice and the third was to introduce greater transparency. I simply do not believe that the do-nothing option is tenable against the climate of public opinion. The second is the possibility of a ban, as the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life accepted in his statement of 30 January, although he conceded that it could
	seem a rather harsh answer to the problem.
	He went on to say that
	an alternative approach would be to insist on greater transparency and proper monitoring of existing requirements, which is generally better than creating new rules and prohibitions.
	I agree with that; we should not compel hon. Members to dismantle arrangements that have enabled them to provide a high-quality service to their constituents. In proposing a formal mechanism for disclosure of employment of relatives, we have taken steps to introduce greater transparency, while at the same time not precluding changes that may emerge from the MEC review, with which my Committee will continue to keep in close touch on issues where we have a common interest.
	Finally, I take the opportunity to remind the House of the importance of ensuring that, in all cases, an employee meets a genuine need in supporting the performance of parliamentary duties; that they are both qualified and able to do the job; that the job is actually done; and that the resulting costs, as far as they are charged to the staffing allowance, are reasonable and entirely attributable to the Member's parliamentary work. I also remind the House of the importance of being able to demonstrate, if challenged, that the terms of any such employment are beyond reproach, and of the severe consequences of falling short of this requirement.
	I commend my Committee's proposals to the House in the hope that their implementation will help to rebuild public confidence in the House, both in our arrangements for employing staff in the light of the undoubted damage done by the events that were the subject of our fourth report, and in the ability of the House to respond quickly and positively to legitimate concerns about our arrangements.

Chris Mullin: I rise to speak in support of the motion. I am a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, which is so ably chaired by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I wish to make only two or three small points.
	First, transparency, however painful, is an essential ingredient of a modern democracy, and we should not enter into arrangements in the employment of staff, or in any other respect, that cannot be defended publicly. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to timing, and I believe that the Committee was right to resist calls for delay. Action was urgently required in the wake of recent events. We in this House have to get ahead of public opinion, and not be continually dragged along behind it.
	Thirdly, and perhaps slightly more controversially, we have only ourselves to blame for the situation in which we find ourselves with regard to public opinion.
	It is true that much of the media reporting on our allowances is mendacious, but for far too long we have tolerated arrangements that do not exist anywhere else in the public or private sector. I recall that on one day in 2001 we voted down the Senior Salaries Review Body's recommendations on pensions and additional costs and substituted more generous arrangements. Sooner or later there was bound to be a public backlash.

John Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman said that we voted down some of the SSRB's proposals on pensions. The only way that they were voted down was, I recollect, by our disagreeing with the SSRB recommendation that would have benefited hon. Members in relation to retained benefits. Can the hon. Gentleman recall any other matter?

Chris Mullin: The hon. Gentleman is far better acquainted with the subject than I am, but my recollection is that at some stage we voted to change the number of yearsit was sixtieths, but has gone down to fortieths. He will correct me if I am wrong, but that was against the SSRB's recommendations, was it not?

John Butterfill: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the previous debate. The change that he is describing was indeed made some years ago, but hon. Members also agreed to pay the full additional cost of that change.

Chris Mullin: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that my recollection is not wrong. It is certainly not wrong on the additional costs allowance, either, where we voted down the SSRB recommendations and added an extra 4,000. The result is that spending the entire allowance has become a target to be aimed for, rather than recompense for expenses legitimately incurred. That is one of the things that have got us into the trouble. However, I do not wish to go any further down that road, because that is not the subject of our discussion.

David Winnick: This is not on the pension position, but is it not the case that reform usually comes only because of a scandal? My hon. Friend might remember cash for questions, the story in  The Sunday Times and so on, when change came accordingly as a result of exposure. It is likewise in the current case. As he says, we always seem to drag our feet on the necessity to be transparent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) responds to that, may I remind the House that the motion before us is quite tightly drawn?

Chris Mullin: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend's point is that such changes come about usually only after a controversy that dynamites us into action, which is certainly what happened in this case. I am sure that we could point to others, too, were it in order to do so.
	Finally, I regard the modest change proposed, which I believe will command universal agreement in the House and outside, as only a first step. We need to establish a mechanism that ends once and for all the practice of voting on our pay and allowances. We look to Sir John Baker for a way out of that. We also need to account properly and publicly for the allowances that we rightly receive, and we look to the Members Estimate Committee to help us with that.

Simon Hughes: We are all grateful to the Standards and Privileges Committee for its work, particularly as it has worked so quickly. On 31 January the House agreed the fourth report, on the employment issues arising from the conduct of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) and the Committee has come back with a recommendation within two months. There was strong pressure, from outside and inside the House, for a new regime to be in place by the start of the new financial year. In essence, the proposals in the report, if we agree them, will allow that to happen, even though, as has been said, they are only a first step.
	It is clearly intended that from April there should be a facility for registering family members, with a view to a final, compulsory system being in place by August, to dovetail with the recommendations of the Members Estimate Committee as a whole. I strongly support that proposal, and the proposal that we should have a compulsory system rather than a voluntary one. I also strongly support the proposal that the name of the family member, or other person with a relationship with the Member, should be listed, and that the job that they do should be described. I hope that it will also be necessary expressly to state the pay band that goes with the job, so that people do not have to cross-refer to other documents, and to state the minimum number of hours per week that the person is contracted to work. That was one of the abuses that came to light in the fourth report.
	I do not have a personal interest in this matter. I have never paid anyone in my family out of my staffing allowance in all my time here, although obviously family and friends have helped with campaigning. That, however, is an entirely different issue, and will apply to all of us.
	Given that this is such a high-profile issue, it is surprising that when the Committee went through the normal procedure of advertising its call for evidence, only three members of the public responded. Sometimes a tale full of sound and fury signifies a lot of interest, but when it came to people actually expressing a view, there was a pretty minimal response from the public. Sir John Baker might not love me for this, but I would like to put in a plug for people to make their views known. Given that the deadline that he has set for people to make submissions to him is, I think, 10 April

Andrew MacKay: 11 April.

Simon Hughes: Thank you. I should like to put in a plug for colleagues and people outside who have a view about pay to make those views known so that they can be fed into the system. We really should not just be talking to ourselves about these things, and it is important that our constituents feed into this process as well.
	My next point might be more controversial. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) and I take the view that, as from 1 August, Members should be allowed to employ only one family member at a time. At the moment, several colleagues apparently employ more than one family member or person with whom they either have or have had a relationship. That is within the law, and it is perfectly understandable. It seems to me, however, that the public will not understand if they see the bulk of the money set aside as an allowance for staff pay going into the family. That really is not a credible proposition.
	We could achieve this change in several ways. We could decide that Members could employ only one member of staff, and that they could pay that person no more than half the yearly allowance, which is now about 100,000. Alternatively, we could set an upper limit to the amount of money available, or set a percentage. It would not be acceptable if this became a way of employing one's family. People might have wonderfully qualified family members who could do these jobs; that is not the point. The point is that we are public servants, and most of the jobs should be advertised publicly and recruited for publicly. There should be an equal opportunities policy for them, and we should behave like the rest of the public service, as the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges has pointed out.
	The only reason why it is acceptable to employ one family member or relative is that being a Member of Parliament often places considerable strains on family life; it is often, in a way, a small business in which all the family is engaged. It is therefore entirely justifiable that a spouse, partner, parent, child, son-in-law or daughter-in-law should be asked to help if they are competent to do so. That is entirely understandable, and can be good for family life. We go beyond the line, however, when we employ a second or third family member. If the first family member ceases to be employed, it is of course reasonable for a second person from the family to be recruited. I hope that we shall have a tough rule in place by 1 August stating that we may employ only one family member from then on.

Andrew MacKay: Would the hon. Gentleman really be comfortable with public advertising of vacancies for our staff? This is a sensitive area. Would he really want a Tory secretary, for example? Would I really want a Lib Dem researcher? I think possibly not.

Simon Hughes: My understanding is that that occasionally happens under the present arrangements, when Members find thateither in knowledge or in ignorancethey have recruited someone who may not share their political viewpoint. Even in families, however, there are sometimes different political viewsnot, of course, in the right hon. Gentleman's family, as I know that his family members who have expressed their views have the same view as his. I do not resile from my position, however. It would be unacceptable to insist that we had to employ people irrespective of their political views; the employee has to be compatible with the political party, or suitable for working with a particular colleague, in the case of an independent. Otherwise, it is entirely possible to recruit on a broad basis. There are websites about working for an MP, and adverts are placed in the newspapers. It is perfectly proper to advertise in that way, and the ability to support either the individual or the party would rightly be seen as a necessary requirement of the job.

Kevin Barron: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Members who employ two family members should get rid of one of them on 1 August?

Simon Hughes: I said very clearly that we cannot legislate retrospectively in such matters, but from 1 August onwards, the rule should be that only one person from the family can be taken into employment, and that where one family member is already working, a second cannot be taken on. We must not be unfair to people presently in employment.
	I wish to raise two final issues that colleagues across the House are concerned about. First, the question that we are debating is a different one from protecting the privacy of our members of staff generally. Mr. Speaker and the Members Estimate Committee are addressing a matter that it is important to get righthow we protect the safety and integrity of our members of staff. That is a wider debate, but I do not think it applies to family members. In the case of family members, there is an overriding obligation to disclose, which is what we should do.
	The second wider issueagain it is a separate matter and not directly affected by what we are debatingis the need to ensure that the home addresses of family members, as of Members of Parliament, are not exposed to unnecessary risks. As I say, that is a wider issue. The issues for today, however, are different. Should we adopt the report? Yes, we should. Should it be only an interim report? Yes, it should. Should the system become compulsory in August? Yes, it should, but I hope it goes further than that. I hope that it will be made clear from then onwards that one family member employee, at most, is quite enough.
	The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) rightly called on us to restore public confidence and trust as quickly as possible, but unless we limit the number of family members that we take on, we will, bluntly, fail to achieve that. I hope that we are tough with ourselves and robust in our decisions, and that we sort the problem out quickly, rather than leaving it in the long grass.

Kali Mountford: I preface my remarks by declaring two interests. The first is that I am a member of the advisory panel on Members' allowances, and the second is that I employ my husband. From the first day I started to employ him, that fact has appeared in my election address. When the fury about the employment of Members' families broke out, I had only one communication about it. That came from someone who regularly writes me lettersusually angry lettersbut on this occasion it was to congratulate me on employing Ian, which was described as one of the best decisions I had ever made. Clearly, not everyone thinks it is necessarily a bad thing to employ one's spouse. Sometimes, however, we have to think a little more deeply about our decisions in the House, and on this occasion, I want us to think more deeply about our job descriptions.
	When we started to reflect on these issues, we began by discussing the consultation on the Senior Salaries Review Body, which predates the fury about what happened in the particular case we all know about, so I do not quite agree that we always come to these matters kicking and screaming. We are also looking into personnel functionsanother important aspect. Since I advertise the fact that I employ my husband, I am obviously not against transparency, but I am concerned about job descriptions.
	The fact that I am a little disabled is clear for everyone to see, so it is not a private matter for me, but for some people, becoming disabled is a private matter. The fact that my husband is my carer is part of his job description, and necessarily so, because the rules of the House say that if someone is one's carer, it must be part of their job description. If have checked today, and that is a condition laid down by the House, so that other allowances can flow.
	Other Members who are disabled might want to keep their disabilities a private matter. Not all disabilities are public. Not all people with disabilities use wheelchairs or have a walking stick, as I do. Some disabilities are private, and some people prefer to keep illnesses a private matter. While this is a narrow area, we must consider whether such matters need to be revisited. If it is a rule of the House that allowances due to Members flow from job descriptions, the Committee needs to consider that situation so that some privacy can be afforded to Members, and we do not have a two-tier system regarding job descriptions.

Nick Harvey: I have every sympathy with the hon. Lady's point. When the Standards and Privileges Committee report says that the job description should appear in the register, it is envisaged that that should be the job title. The wording might be slightly misleading, but the Committee certainly has no intention whatever that the entry in the register should go into any detail about the contents of the job description itself.

Kali Mountford: Many Members with this concern will be comforted by that helpful response. When I asked members of the Committee about the issue, I was told that Members would have time to review their position. I asked over and over again what was meant by a review and I was told, You'll have time to get your house in order. When I asked whether I could take this particular element out of the job description, Officers of the House told me that I could not, because elements of allowances flowed from its inclusion in the job description. The two messages were inconsistent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, because while my disability is visible and there for all to see, others have disabilities that are not visible. If the hon. Gentleman is correct, people will be comfortedI see that hon. Members are noddingand the review will be unnecessary in that regard.
	I am also worried about the very broad range of salaries. Knowing what my constituents are likeI am sure that all hon. Members' constituents are the samethey will assume that everyone is on the top rate. I will get letters saying, Isn't there a lot of money going into your house? I can assure my constituents right away that my husband is not on the top of the rangeneither is he right at the bottombut Members will receive lots of letters saying, I expect you're all on the top rate.
	This process will not be the end; there will be a lot more curiosity. What we are doing should be about serving the public interest, not public curiosity. I hope that the process will feed into the Members Estimate Committee and that we will be allowed to carry on work to examine a proper personnel function that can exist alongside a proper accounting function. While this process serves a function, it will not be the whole story. Rather than looking at what Members' families do, surely the House should look at what all our staff do.
	As employers, we ought to be looking at the interests of our staff. All our staff need to be doing what they are paid to do. What is interesting here is not the fact that one individual made a mistake about a member of their family, but the fact that there ought to be a proper personnel function whereby an employer employs a member of staff, we know what that member of staff is doing, and we have a proper way to deal with the relationship between employer and employee so that it is properly accounted for. That would satisfy the public that we know what we are doing, that we are a proper professional organisationall of usand that we do not make a distinction between family members and others.
	To say that a member of my family is somehow less of a human being and more likely to be a rogue, a vagabond and a thief seems to be the wrong way to look at things. Any of us could be making mistakes, so we must ensure that the functions of the House are so correctly set up that none of us could make a mistake with any of our staff. That would be the right way forward.

Mark Field: I, too, support the report; in particular, I compliment the Committee on producing it so rapidly. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) pointed out, it is only eight weeks since the coming to pass of the events that led to the necessity to produce the report. It is a great tribute to his work that the response has been so rapid.
	I have a small amount of sympathy with the view that the matter should perhaps have been considered in the round along with all the Members Estimate Committee issues. That point was made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) a moment or two ago, but as the Committee was willing to move so quickly, it makes sense to have produced the report. I hope that action will be taken in advance of the next tax year.
	I fear, however, that the House is still woefully slow to wake up to the reality of public opinion surrounding the use andI further fearfrequent misuse of allowances and expenses. The dismay and disgust of recent weeks have given way in recent days to disbelief as, collectively, we still appear to regard these issues as something of a parliamentary matter to be kept away from the prying eyes of press and public alike. It is essential that we get real. We now need a regime of openness, transparency and full disclosure. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) pointed out, that regime needs to be fit for the modern world in which we live.
	I very much support virtually the entire report. It is correct that Members should be required to name members of staff with whom they have a strong personal relationship. I have some fears about the de minimis proposal, although I suspect that the events of recent months will put that to one side. I fear that a de minimis arrangement almost gives rise to the notion that paying 600 quid a year to a close member of staff to do the Christmas card list is part and parcel of the various rations. I hope that what has happened in recent weeks and months means that we will put an end to the flagrant misuse, particularly of the additional costs allowance, which we will discuss further before the summer recess.
	I also want to comment briefly on behalf of my own staff. I allowed them to say what they thought about the report. Like many Members, I have never employed a member of my family as a member of staff; I was elected seven years ago. When I consulted my staff, they were concerned about much fuller disclosure, although it is something to which I would not object. However, their objection was instinctive, on the basis that it has perhaps at times been useful not to give their name over the telephone, particularly when a constituent might be violent or threatening. All my staff are here at the Palace of Westminster, in the heart of my constituency, but I am sure that the same objection applies to the staff of many Members from outside London who have constituency offices on their own patch, where staff could find themselves at some risk of assault, through either menacing telephone calls or, indeed, physical attack.
	Therefore, in bringing forward this welcome first step in what I hope will be a list of disclosures, we need to recognise that the people who have suffered most are not Members of Parliament, but, in many ways, their members of staff. I am sure that they are the butt of jokes. Anyone who says that he or she works for a Member of Parliament has probably had a very difficult time over the past two months. Staff members are not particularly well remunerated by any normal standards. I would love to pay my staff working in central London considerably more, but obviously I must remain within the constraints of our budgets. We should remember that the interests of staff need to be served as well.
	I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire for introducing his timely report so swiftly. I hope that it will reflect well, together with all the other various other reports, so that we shall put our House entirely in order in the months ahead. I fear it is inevitable that the press will wish to make much of this, but it is not just the result of a campaign put up by the  Daily Mail or the  Evening Standard. These issues are at the heart of many of the concerns of the constituents whom we seek to represent, and we now have it in our power to ensure that we get things right.

Harriet Harman: I thank the Standards and Privileges Committee for its work. The report is based on consideration of the issues, followed by a consultation exercise. I thank the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for chairing the Committee and for the clarity with which he introduced the report. As is the convention, we found time for the report to be debated promptly following its publication.
	Let me say a little about the background. I remind the House, as a number of hon. Members have done, that on 24 Januarybefore the publication of the report on the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway)the House decided that we must deal with the question of our pay and how we decide on it, and also with the question of our allowances.
	In respect of pay, we acted on the proposal made many years ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that our pay should be pegged to an external comparator, and that there should be an independent review mechanism so that we need no longer vote on our own pay. On 24 January, the House accepted that proposal. Sir John Baker is now conducting a review that will propose a comparator and a mechanism. He is taking evidence, and will produce a report by the end of May. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to vote on his recommendations before the House rises for the summer recess. The process was already in hand before the breaking of the scandal relating to the abuse of public funds by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
	At the same time, we discussed allowances. I made clear then, as I do today, that we ought to treat the matter of our payour remunerationseparately from that of reimbursement. We need to ensure that Members can be reimbursed for travelling to and from their constituencies, and that they can be compensated for the extra expense of having two homes, one in London, so that they can represent their constituents at Westminster, and, in the case of out-of-London Members, one in the constituency.
	All Members of Parliament also need proper, well-funded offices to support them in their work. If we believe that legislation should be scrutinised properly, they must have proper staff in their offices to assist them with that scrutiny. If we want people to be properly represented in the constituencies and helped with individual case work, there must be a proper staff complement. Remuneration for travel, for living away from home and for staff offices is important. We decided on 24 January that we would refer the question of allowances for a root-and-branch review to the Members Estimate Committee, and, before the issue of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup arose, the Speaker's Committee took on the responsibility.
	It has been agreed that that should come back to the House by July. I had originally thought that to have a separation between pay and allowances

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to stop the Leader of the House. I thought that she was giving some brief background to the report, which is tightly drawn, as she will have heard me tell other hon. Members. Perhaps she can bear that in mind when she continues her remarks.

Harriet Harman: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have done exactly the right thing in interrupting me and I will conclude with a couple of sentences.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has set out the proposals in the report. We need clear rules, good advice from the House authorities, and public confidence in the outcome. I urge all hon. Members to support the motion.

Shailesh Vara: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for the sterling work he does as Chairman of the Committee, and I thank his fellow Committee members, not only for having produced the report so expeditiously but for all the other work they do on that very important Committee. The disclosure requirements complement the broader review that is being undertaken by the Members Estimate Committee, the findings of which will be published just before the summer recess.
	My party and I welcome the proposals. It is important that there is transparency in all we do and in how we use taxpayers' money. That is particularly so when family members are involved and are paid from the staffing allowance, which at the end of the day is taxpayers' money. However, I wish to put on record my tribute to the enormous hard work done by family members for hon. Members. I do not employ any family members as part of my staff but I have seen many others who do.
	It is important to remember that the job of a Member's personal assistantif he or she is a spousedoes not end at 5 o'clock; it is not a nine-to-five job. When the Member goes home, so does the spouse, but also so does the personal assistant. The work continues to be done at home, including at weekends. It is important to recognise the work done by spouses.
	I also wish to put it on the record that the Leader of the Opposition has already instructed his Front-Bench team that any family members that they employ should be registered, and we welcome the fact that the Standards and Privileges Committee has followed that line. The House will be aware that the Leader of the Opposition has also said that, from 1 April, his Front-Bench team must itemise their spending in terms of the different allowances.
	The report is a step in the right direction, towards transparency, and Conservative Members welcome it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House approves the Seventh Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 436) on Employment of family members through the Staffing Allowance; and endorses the changes proposed by the Committee in the purpose and form of the Register of Members' Interests.

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE (BOSTON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Alan  Campbell.]

Mark Simmonds: I begin by thanking Mr. Speaker for selecting this debate on an issue that has caused a great deal of interest and controversy in my constituency. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for being here to respond to the debate. I understand that the debate is allowed to continue until 6.30 pm, but I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Under-Secretary that I shall not keep the House here until then.
	It is important that I set out some of the background to this important issue. I wish to put on record some of the important statisticsparticularly economic onesthat pertain to the borough of Boston and to south-east Lincolnshire. The borough of Boston covers approximately 36,000 hectares, or 139 sq miles. Most of the area is rural, comprising rich, agricultural fenland. Boston is a sub-regional centre.
	The borough of Boston has a population of 53,700, half of whom live in Boston. The population of Lincolnshire and of the Boston and Skegness constituency have increased significantly over the past decade. There has also been a significant increase in the migrant population, who often work in agriculture and horticulture.
	The town of Boston is the focus for retail and business activity and the delivery of public sector services for this region of Lincolnshire. It has a commercial catchment population of between 80,000 and 100,000.
	There is only one port in the east midlands, and it is in Boston. Regular sailings go to Germany, Holland and Scandinavia, and the port offers a significant range of facilities for container, bulk and sideport services 24 hours a day. The port of Boston handles 750 vessels per annum, which generates significant haulageI shall return to that point.
	There are also significant industrial activities, based around the Riverside industrial estate and other smaller industrial estates. Major companies are located in and around Boston, including Del Monte, Finnforest and Norprint, as are a significant number of pack houses, whose sole job is to pack agricultural produce for delivery to all the main supermarkets around the UK 364 days a year.
	It is also important that the House understands the breakdown of the work force in the Boston area. The total work force is approximately 34,000, 29 per cent. of whom are employed in distribution services, 27 per cent. in public services and public administrationapproximately 2,000 of them are employed at the main hospital in my constituency, Pilgrim hospital15 per cent. in manufacturing and 11 per cent. in agriculture, which is one of the highest proportions of agricultural employment in the UK.
	As well as being a significant employer, agriculture and tangential businesses clearly create a significant amount of traffic, and not just the obvious vehiclestractors looking after the farms, and ploughing-in the crops and removing them when ready. Consumers now demand fresh produce from supermarkets 364 days of the year. Lincolnshire produces 20 per cent. of the country's output, resulting in lorries carrying loads to deliver produce to supermarkets. To secure a contract with a supermarket, a farmer or pack house owner must be able to supply produce to it 364 days a year. Given our climate, we cannot grow the produce 364 days a year, so much of it must be imported from elsewhere in Europeand further afieldand particularly from Spain and Poland, from where it is delivered by road to the pack houses in my constituency and packed before being delivered to the main supermarket chains, all of which generates significant amounts of traffic. There are important wider implications, too: climate change, energy security and the demand for food have combined to make agriculture a strategically important industry.
	It is not just the important economic activity in Boston that generates traffic. Boston is also a gateway to the east Lincolnshire coast. Tourism in Lincolnshire is dominated by the coastal resorts of Skegness and Ingoldmells, both of which are in my constituency. There are 3.4 million staying visitors on the east Lincolnshire coast and 13 million day visitors per annum. I acknowledge that not all of them pass through Boston, but a significant number of them do. The east midlands tourism strategy has the ambition and vision that by 2010 tourism will play a significantly greater role in the prosperity of the east midlands, which inevitably will increase traffic flows.
	As I am sure the Minister is aware, the primary road network providing access to the east Lincolnshire coast is not good. The A16 from the north and the A52 from the south are two-way single-carriageway routes. In addition, there are almost 30,000 caravans or mobile homes in a tightly drawn zone of coastal hinterland: the largest single collection of mobile homes in Europe. Those mobile homes and caravans contribute to the local visitor economy and meet a clear demand for relatively inexpensive holiday accommodation. The highly popular attractions of Fantasy Island and Butlins in Skegness, which accommodate 12,000 people a week, generate significant traffic flows.
	Vehicle movement is stimulated not only by visitors to the east Lincolnshire coast and the economic activity around Boston, but by normal people living normal lives. South-east Lincolnshire is a very rural area, where people have no choice but to use their cars and other motor vehicles. Public transport is extremely limited. In addition to the towns of Boston and Skegness, my constituency alone contains 73 villages. Many people who live in those villages work in the centre of Boston. People have no choice but to use their cars to get to work, to collect children from school, to go to the supermarket and to go about the other business of their daily lives.
	All those factors combine to create regular, persistent and significant congestion, not only within Boston, but along the roads leading into it. The Minister will be aware of the impacts of congestion, which include the negative impacts on the town centre as people choose to shop and conduct their business elsewhere. People who live on one side of Boston go to Spalding to do their shopping and people who live on the eastern side of Boston go to Skegness to do theirs, which has had a detrimental impact on business in the centre of Boston.
	New businesses that might come to Boston are refusing to locate as a direct result of the appalling traffic. Even more worryingly, some historic Boston-located businesses are saying privately to me that unless something improves, and because of the additional time and cost in getting their produce and goods to market, they will have no choice but to relocate. The situation causes obvious problems for the emergency services, and constant congestion also leads to high carbon footprints and very poor air quality. In short, the prosperity of the area is being damaged and undermined by the poor road infrastructure.
	People may ask whether, as the constituency Member of Parliament, I am alone in feeling passionately about this issue. The answer is definitely no, and there is strong evidence to support that: the petition that I have presented to this House and a petition presented to Downing street earlier today, both of which contained 11,000 signatures from the people of the borough of Boston, and the significant success of the Boston Bypass Independent party in the recent local elections in the borough of Boston, in which it swept all the traditional political parties out of power by winning 27 out of a possible 32 seats and becoming the ruling group. Most of those representatives are here in the Public Gallery to listen to the Minister's response, and they are extremely welcome, as are the other members of the Boston by-pass pressure group. A significant and dedicated group has also worked very hard for a number of years to try to raise this issue and find solutions to this significant problem.
	I know that the Minister is extremely diligent, so I am sure that he will have been briefed very thoroughly. I hope that he will therefore be aware that the Lincolnshire structural plan states that Boston
	must encourage the diversification of the economy... by supporting the development of Boston as a retail, heritage tourism, business and service centre for south-east Lincolnshire
	It also states that Boston has
	to invest in the Port.
	That will be very difficult to achieve while the town is often gridlocked.
	Those aims are also recognised within both the regional spatial strategy and the regional economic strategy for the east midlands. The local area masterplan for Boston, which sets out the future vision for economic development in Boston, concludes that the existing transport infrastructure is the main barrier preventing Boston from developing into a more vibrant urban centre.
	In recognition of the importance of the role of transport in supporting economic initiatives at local and regional level, the county council and Boston borough council commissioned a transport study for Boston, covering all modes of transport. The study clearly recognises the need for investment in transport infrastructure to support the continued growth of Boston, with particular emphasis on housing, economic growth and tourism.
	I acknowledge that there has been some progress through short-term measures. There has been collective agreement from disparate sources to put 10 million into improved short-term road infrastructure. Turning off the traffic lights at one roundabout in Boston has enabled better flowa decision that has been universally applauded. New bus routes will go through the centre of town. They are not necessarily universally popular or applauded, but we shall see whether they make a significant difference.
	The transport strategy aimed to do four things: to reduce car use for journeys that are wholly within Boston; to improve public transport access and provision; to improve cycling and pedestrian management in the town centre; and to encourage walking and cycling where possible. Those extremely laudable aims could, if combined, make a contribution and a short-term difference. However, in a big rural county such as Lincolnshire, people have no choice but to use their cars and other motor vehicles.
	That needs to be put in the context of the projected vehicle number increases. The Department for Transport's figures state that by 2025 across the UKnot just in Lincolnshirethere will be an expected increase in kilometre journeys of 31 per cent. and in congestion of 28 per cent. It is not sufficient to say that short-term measures are a medium or long-term solutionthey are not, particularly when they are coupled with the continued population growth in Boston, which has occurred for a variety of reasons, including the relatively low-cost housing and a significant influx of migrant labour working in agriculture and horticulture.
	I have come to the conclusion, along with many representatives of local people who are here today and watching in Boston, that the only solution is what is euphemistically called a distributor road around Boston. That would provide quicker access to and egress from Boston as well as a quicker route for people who want to travel to the east Lincolnshire coast and back to Boston.
	Boston borough council and Lincolnshire county council recognise that they must work together through the local development framework and the Boston transport strategy as well as the local transport plan. Those matters are progressing. A distributor road would aim to remove as much traffic that starts or finishes in Boston as possible. It would thereby maximise the number of opportunities that Boston traffic would have to access the distributor road as an alternative to travelling through the town centre along John Adams way.
	As a major part of funding the distributor road, those involved would seek to maximise private sector contributions. That is a significant issue that I want the Minister to engage with, if not today then in the future. I will talk about that in more detail later. We need significantly to improve air quality, including in the air quality management area. Those environmental benefits would have knock-on impacts that would contribute to the improved use of public space in the town centre.
	The result, in my view, would be that the town centre would become a more attractive location for residents, businesses and visitors, thereby sustaining its role as a sub-regional centre. The strategy will also act as a catalyst for development opportunities through the town. We will have to integrate a distributor road with new development as the way to redistribute traffic and meet the needs for new development.
	As with all such things, there is a further complication. Lincolnshire is at risk of flooding, particularly because of climate change and rising sea levels. The 1953 flood on the east Lincolnshire coast killed 43 people, although Boston has not flooded significantly in living memory. The latest Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs guidance, of December 2006, suggests that from now until the turn of the next century defences along the Lincolnshire coast must allow for a sea level rise of almost 0.95 m, with the annual rate of increase rising from 4 mm a year now to 15 mm a year after 2085.
	Some 88 per cent. of land in the fens is cultivated, and the fertile soils account for about half of all grade 1 land in the country, which is the most productive farmland in England. In the borough of Boston, virtually all the agricultural land is grade 1 or grade 2. A successful and sustainable future for the fens is therefore vital to the country, if only for food security. It is imperative that there is sufficient funding to enable authorities to take appropriate action to minimise risk and the impact of future events.
	A continued programme of investment in flood defence measures is vital to mitigate the risk of flooding due to the effects of climate change. It would be completely unacceptable for that high-quality agricultural land, which makes such a significant contribution to UK food supplies and to the people who work in that part of Lincolnshire, to be allowed to disappear under the sea. It is inconceivable.
	The Environment Agency has played a significant role in its input into the east midlands regional spatial strategy, which recommends that until a coastal study is completed on the role and the future of the Lincolnshire coastal authorities, properly to understand the climate change and flood risk issues, development restraint should be shown. What does that mean? It means that planning for natural growth and associated infrastructure improvement is to be halted, and that proper planning for economic growth and the necessary road infrastructure improvements cannot be undertaken. There is a paradox here: on one hand, the Environment Agency is restricting development and economic and infrastructure enhancement, but on the other it is simultaneously funding the construction of a Boston flood barrage, thereby ensuring Boston's security for the future. It cannot have it both ways.
	In the Boston area, which does not have a history of flooding, there needs to be an approach that allows appropriate, sensible growth. Due to the excellent work of the internal drainage boards in and around Boston, the sophisticated pumping systems and the significant and excellent local expertise, it is one of the least likely areas in the country to flood. Of course, all bodies need to work together, and environmental adaptation strategies need to be put in place, but we cannot allow Boston to be frozen in time and wither on the vine.
	If the Secretary of State were to accept the recommendations of the panel on the east midlands regional spatial strategy, that would seriously undermine the progress that can be made on establishing a local development framework that will deliver a distributor road. Essentially, all development in the short to medium term would be confined to sites that already have the benefit of planning permission and to brownfield sites in built-up areas. I understand that, even now, the Environment Agency is stopping planning permission for modest residential sites within the curtilage of the built-up part of the borough of Boston, so that there may be no further development.
	One could well ask why this is so important. It is vital because a significant proportion of the funding for such a road would have to come from developers' contributions. If there is no development, there will be no contributions and therefore no significant and necessary improvements to Boston's road infrastructure. The stated aim is to use the development framework so that as Boston grows the distributor road is constructed. The people of Boston require central Government buy-in, however, and they will require capital funding to commence the process.
	I have three final points. The first is to suggest that the DFT must engage with DEFRA, because there may well be a solution that can provide and improve the road infrastructure and provide necessary flood defences to the borough of Boston. The second is that I want to ensure that the Minister understands the strength of feeling that exists in Boston. I hope that he will agree to receive a delegation from the borough so that we can explain in more detail what needs to be done to improve the road infrastructure and therefore the life and work of everybody in Boston.
	My final point is that the Department for Transport should engage with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and therefore with the Environment Agency, to ensure that the latter does not hinder the necessary economic growth, and therefore residential development, that will be required to fund the much needed road infrastructure improvement in Boston.
	In conclusion, I wish to re-emphasise the vital role that improving the road infrastructure will have to play if Boston is to continue to thrive as a sub-regional centre of Lincolnshire. Without the improvements in the road infrastructure, there is a real danger that Boston will just wither on the vine.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) on securing the debate. I thank him for not continuing until 6.30 pm, although whatever time we finish here or in our offices, I wager that as an east London MP, I will be home sooner than he will.
	The hon. Gentleman graphically and passionately described the traffic problems experienced in Boston. I know from the petition that he presented to the House last December that it is an important issue for local residents. I share his, and their, desire to see accessibility improved. Good transport is essential for a successful economy and society. People travel daily and want a transport system that gets them from A to B safely, securely and without damaging the environment. Businesses rely on transport not only for their work force and customers to use, but to ensure that their goods can be transported quickly and cheaply. As he pointed out in relation to Boston town centre, customers also need to be able to reach retail businesses so that they can flourish.
	The challenge for the Government is to frame a transport strategy that not only supports living within our environmental means, but sustains a strong economy. We believe that we cannot simply build our way out of the congestion problems that we face. It would be environmentally irresponsible and it would not work. We must therefore make our existing transport networks operate more efficiently and in a more environmentally friendly way. Our goal is a road network that provides a more reliable and freer flowing system for users, and where travellers can make informed choices about how and when they travel, and so minimise the adverse impact of road traffic on the environment.
	We are investing in the road network through the regional funding allocation, the Highways Agency and the local transport plan process. We are also improving traffic management in our towns and cities, particularly through the powers set out in the draft traffic management Bill, and encouraging the adoption of smarter choices, through school and workplace travel planning, while also promoting and facilitating public transport, cycling and walking.
	Buses are the main form of public transport and are a powerful tool in tackling problems caused by congestion. Increased investment in bus services and improved partnership working are beginning to reverse the decline in bus patronage, but to realise their full potential we need more bus networks that provide flexible and convenient services tailored to local needs and offering a reliable way to travel to and from jobs, schools, shops and other services. Yesterday's successful Second Reading of the Local Transport Bill will help to achieve that. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's comments about the new arrangements and the need to wait to see whether they will improve the situation in Boston.
	Perceptions of our transport system are, of course, governed by our individual experiences and I fully acknowledge that getting around, into and through Boston is difficult, especially at peak times. As the hon. Gentleman said, responsibility for the roads in Boston rests with the local highway authority, Lincolnshire county council. As he described, it is working with Boston borough council to tackle the congestion problem, and an important consideration is that, as a traditional market town and port, Boston is itself a destination for a considerable amount of traffic. I fully acknowledge that.
	I understand that studies by Lincolnshire county council indicate that a bypass would remove less than 20 per cent. of traffic from the town centre. Consequently, Lincolnshire has made no provision for a bypass scheme in its local transport plan, as the hon. Gentleman knows. However, the authorities worked in partnership with local residents to publish, in December 2006, the transport strategy for Boston. That document recognises the need for, among other things, investment in transport infrastructure. Following an analysis of Boston's traffic problems, it proposes a number of transport improvements in the short termup to 2010and in the longer term.
	In the short term, the focus is on improving public transport by introducing a new in-town service, with bus priority measures and real-time passenger information; improving the A16 and A52 main roads in the town to allow traffic to flow more freely, reducing journey times by up to 30 per cent.; introducing car parking improvements and traffic management measures to smooth the flow of through-traffic in Boston; and introducing measures to encourage walking and cycling. Clearly, none of that will happen without funding, and I am pleased to say that through the local transport plan process, the Department for Transport is playing a full part in supporting transport investment in Lincolnshire.
	Not including major scheme and de-trunked roads maintenance expenditure, we have invested 113 million in the county in the past 5 years. Building on that, the county council was awarded 24.6 million for 2008-09 in the LTP settlement last November. That figure will rise to 28.4 million in 2010-11. Drawing on that investment, its own resources, and those of the borough council, the county council has allocated 10 million to fund the short-term works set out in the transport strategy for Boston.
	In the longer term, the transport strategy recognises that there is a need for additional road infrastructurea local distributor road, as the hon. Gentleman said, and not a fully fledged bypassto provide traffic with an alternative to travelling through the town centre. A local distributor road, partly funded through developer contributions, would aim to ease access to the town centre and remove through-traffic. I understand the view that one way of delivering extra road infrastructure is with developer contributions, specifically for new housing in Boston, but I hear what he says about potential problems with such contributions because of conflicting policy advice. Boston has signalled its interest in housing growth in its response to the Government's invitation for bids for new growth point status.
	The borough council envisages that a local distributor road could be a key component of the economic development of the town, but as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it is not quite as simple as that. As he says, in considering the case for new development in or around Boston, one critical factor that must not be overlooked is the risk of flooding, whether that be from rising sea levels or extreme weather resulting from global warming. I am pleased that, in recognition of the need to consider all the relevant implications of new development, interested parties are working together to devise a coastal strategy that will balance the benefits of regeneration through development with the risk of flooding. I applaud the input of the local authoritiesEast Lindsey and South Holland district councils, Lincolnshire county council and Boston borough councilwhich are working with the East Midlands Development Agency, the Environment Agency, the East Midlands regional assembly and the Government office for the east midlands.
	The outcome of that work will be crucial in helping to guide future development in and around Boston, and on the entire Lincolnshire coastal strip. However, we must await the completion of the work before we make meaningful judgments on the amount or location of new development. Without prejudice to that work, I would like to spend a few moments explaining the funding process. As I said, responsibility for providing new road infrastructure rests with the local highway authority, which in this instance is Lincolnshire county council. It would be for the county council to take forward the preparation of any scheme and to negotiate with regional partners to secure its place among the investment priorities under the regional funding allocation for the region.
	The RFA was introduced by the Government in 2005 to help to integrate spending on transport, housing and economic development, and to give regions a greater voice in investment decisions. Subject to any scheme finding a place in the RFAI must stress that competition for funds is keenit would fall to the county council to take the scheme through the Department for Transport's appraisal stages, from programme entry to full approval. When those stages are completed, funding can be drawn down for construction.
	I strongly encourage the county and borough councils to continue their effective partnership working to address Boston's pressing traffic problems, and to continue to work with other partners to devise the coastal strategy that will clearly be of fundamental importance to Boston in the longer term. For my part, I can certainly offer the Department for Transport's continued support for Lincolnshire's local transport plan, and the assistance of officials in the Department and also of the Government office for the east midlands, as matters develop.
	On my availability for a meeting with the hon. Gentleman and local representatives and residents, given that, as I described, Lincolnshire county council is the first port of call, such a meeting would be of limited benefit, especially as the Department is not the initial decision maker in the process. I am prepared to discuss that with him outside the Chamber, but as I say, the first port of call should be Lincolnshire county council.

Mark Simmonds: rose

Jim Fitzpatrick: Before I conclude, I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman who initiated the debate.

Mark Simmonds: The Minister was prescient in guessing what I intended to ask. I am grateful for his offer of a private discussion, which I will take up, although I am disappointed by his initial reaction to my request for him to meet a small delegation. I envisage representatives of Lincolnshire county council being part of that delegation. There is the view that although Lincolnshire county council and Boston borough council are working well together, there needs to be central Government buy-in to create impetus. I very much hope that after our private conversation, the Minister will reconsider.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I take personal pride, and I know that ministerial colleagues in the Department have the same attitude, in acceding whenever possible to a request from an hon. Member for a meeting. I am prepared to have a discussion outside on the basis that if we can identify the potential of such a meetingI hear what the hon. Gentleman says about Lincolnshire county council officials being part of the delegationit may be appropriate to go forward, but I would not want to commit the Department to such a meeting without having an informal discussion with him in due course.
	Notwithstanding that qualification, I hope that my response has been helpful to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. I finish by congratulating him again on securing this important debate for himself and his constituents.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Four o'clock.